P L D 1989 Supreme Court 508 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to Appeal has been sought from judgment dated 23‑12‑1987 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Intra‑Court Appeal against the dismissal of his Writ Petition arising out of a service matter, was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel states that a departmental case is in progress against the petitioner. During the proceedings an authorized officer was appointed. The petitioner objected to this appointment, but without any success. He challenged the same in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. But a learned Single Judge dismissed his petition with a very brief order regarding its maintainability. His appeal met the same fate. Though this time the learned Division Bench, in the Intra‑Court Appeal, gave reasons in support of the dismissal of the appeal.

3. When questioned whether the circumstances, pointed out below, exist in this case? The learned counsel answered in the affirmative. They are:‑ (1)??????? Whether a Service Tribunal has been established, under Clause (1) of Article 212 of the Constitution, for dealing with the cases as the present one? (2)??????? Whether the phrase "no other Court" in Clause (2) of Article 212 includes the High Court also?????????????? (3) Whether the subject‑matter of the Writ Petition filed in the High Court by the petitioner is such, to which the jurisdiction of the tribunal extends." The learned counsel, as stated earlier, answered all these questions in the affirmative. That being so, when asked the next question whether the phrase "no other Court shall entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of tribunal extends", did not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court, the learned counsel, to be fair to him, very frankly stated that it does bar the jurisdiction. He, however, at the same time prayed that the jurisdictional position being clear this Court, while disposing of the petition, may make an observation that the petitioner, if so advised, might seek his remedy before the concerned tribunal. Even without such observation, the petitioner is entitled to seek remedy in accordance with the law applicable to the tribunal concerned with regard to the filing of appeals. The petitioner would have to satisfy all the conditions for filing such an appeal. One of the conditions being that the order impugned before the tribunal should be such A which is appeal able in accordance with the relevant Service Tribunals Act. But the order impugned before the High Court vis-?-vis the stage at which it has been passed, is not appeal able, the petitioner would have to wait till such an order is passed against him, which is appeal able before the tribunal. ??????????????????????? 4.???????? With these observations, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Before closing, it needs to be observed that the bar of jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters, contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, has also been spelled out by this Court in a recent B decision in the case of S.P.Lahore v. Muhammad Latif ASI (Civil Appeal No.67. of 1984, decided on 19‑4‑1988) P L D 1988 SC 387. 5.?? In the light of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed. M . B . A . / A .524/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.