2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Maintainability

Constitutional petition was not maintainable qua intermediate stages. Abdul Wahab's case PLD 1989 SC 508 ref. Ch. Naseer Ahmad Bhutta for Petitioner. Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney-General for, Pakistan (on Court s call). The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order dated 15-4-2003 through this Constitutional petition and also challenged the vires of the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was inducted in service after passing the examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Provincial Government. The respondents transferred the petitioner at Karachi but the Provincial Government did not allow the petitioner to relieve the charge. He further submits that the competent Authority to pass the impugned order is the Secretary concerned whereas the impugned order was passed by the Chairman who is not Appointing Authority of the petitioner. He further submits that the competent authority under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is the concerned Secretary in view of section 2(aa). He further submits that the Chairman has initiated proceedings against the petitioner, who is admittedly not competent authority in terms of the aforesaid definition prescribed in the Ordinance. He further urges that the action of the respondent is also in violation of section 12 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He further submits that action of the respondents is not in consonance with the notification issued by the respondents on 17-6-2000 according to which the competent authority is the Secretary concerned whereas the impugned order is passed by the Chairman who has been appointed by the respondents on contract who is in Grade 21 as is evident from section 4 of the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002. He further submits that action of the respondents is hit by Article 4 and 25 of the Constitution.

3. Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that writ petition, is not maintainable.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. The matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable after addition of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in United Bank Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 990). The petitioner has alternative remedy to file an appeal before the competent Tribunal in view of section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special (Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The question of law has been raised and finally decided by the Full Bench of this Court and rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioners by the Full Bench in the reported case Muzaffar Hussain v. The Superintendent of Police, District Sialkot (2002 PLC (C.S.) 442). The petitioner has challenged the vires of the Ordinance. therefore, writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Iqan Ahmed Khurram v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1980 SC 153). Similarly the contention that action was finally taken by the incompetent authority, has also no force in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Yameen Qureshi's case (PLD 1980 SC 22). It is also settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable qua the intermediate stages as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Abdul Wahab's case (PLD 1.989 SC 508). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.A./B-146/L Petition dismissed.