1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ALIPUR and others
| Citation | 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ALIPUR and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ALIPUR and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Tariq Sher Khan for Petitioner.
- Zafar Ullah Dareshak, AA-G. for Respondent No. 1.
- Zafar Ullah Dareshak, AA‑G. for Respondent No. 1.
- 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Assistant Advocate‑General and gone through the record before me. Learned AA: G. for the respondents has correctly raised the objection that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of our country. According to this Article 212(2) in any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court or Tribunal no other Court can grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of the same. It has been held in Muhammad Shafi etc. v. Education Authorities (NLR 1992 T.D. 728 Lahore) that the appeal lies from order without jurisdiction as appeal lies from order with jurisdiction and that the mere fact that the orders were issued on the direction of the Chief Minister would not render them orders of non‑departmental authorities which would nonetheless remain appealable under section 4 before the Service Tribunal. The Constitutional petition against transfer orders of civil servants is incompetent under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of our country and the affected civil servants can approach the Service Tribunal for the redress of the grievance as the transfer of a civil servant has the connection to the terms and conditions of his service which can be appreciated and analysed by the Service Tribunal and not by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. To strengthen my view point I also refer to the ruling Naseem Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab (NLR 1992 T.D. 672 Lahore (D.B.)
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 199 & 212(2)
Validity-- Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution--Maintainability-- Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution against transfer order of civil servant was incompetent, in terms of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution
Affected civil servant could approach Service Tribunal for redress of grievance
Transfer of civil servant was relatable to terms and conditions of his service which could be considered and analysed by Service Tribunal and not by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction- Constitutional petition against transfer order of civil servant was not maintainable under, Art. 199 of the Constitution. Muhammad Shafi etc. v. Education Authorities NLR 1992 TD 728 and Naseem Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab NLR 1992 TD 672 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Shafi etc. v. Education Authorities NLR 1992 TD 728 and Naseem Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab NLR 1992 TD 672 rel. Sardar Tariq Sher Khan for Petitioner. Zafar Ullah Dareshak, AA‑G. for Respondent No.
1. Ghulam Hussain petitioner is a Patwari who has been transferred by the Assistant Commissioner, Ali Pur, District Muzaffargarh to some other place and feeling aggrieved he has questioned the vires of the order on the ground that he was under suspension when he could not be transferred and that his transfer was made at the instance of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister of the Punjab at a time when there was complete ban on the transfers. In place of the petitioner Muhammad Yasin was transferred as the Patwari.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Assistant Advocate‑General and gone through the record before me. Learned AA: G. for the respondents has correctly raised the objection that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of our country. According to this Article 212(2) in any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court or Tribunal no other Court can grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of the same. It has been held in Muhammad Shafi etc. v. Education Authorities (NLR 1992 T.D. 728 Lahore) that the appeal lies from order without jurisdiction as appeal lies from order with jurisdiction and that the mere fact that the orders were issued on the direction of the Chief Minister would not render them orders of non‑departmental authorities which would nonetheless remain appealable under section 4 before the Service Tribunal. The Constitutional petition against transfer orders of civil servants is incompetent under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of our country and the affected civil servants can approach the Service Tribunal for the redress of the grievance as the transfer of a civil servant has the connection to the terms and conditions of his service which can be appreciated and analysed by the Service Tribunal and not by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. To strengthen my view point I also refer to the ruling Naseem Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab (NLR 1992 T.D. 672 Lahore (D.B.)
3. Consequently I hold that this writ petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution which cannot proceed before this Court.
4. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in limine. A.A./G‑291/L Petition dismissed.