1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 5444/97, 5445/97, 5446/97, 5447/97, 5448/97 and 5449197 as common questions of law, and fact arise in all these matters.

2. The petitioners in all these petitions were holding the posts of Anesthesia Assistant (BS‑7), Sign Writer, Radiographer (BS‑6), Radiographer (BS‑8), Radiographer (BS‑6) and Head Dispenser (BS‑9) and were promoted on 22‑2‑1997 as Operation Theatre Supervisor (BS‑15), Artist‑cum‑Modler (BS‑15), C.T. Scan Technicians (BS‑15), Angiographer Technician (BS‑12) and Physiotherapy Technical Supervisor (BS‑15) respectively by the Medical Superintendent, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad on the recommendation of the' Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioners were later reverted by order dated 3‑3‑1997 to their respective original posts by withdrawal of the earlier orders dated 18‑2‑1997, 20‑2‑1997 and 27‑2‑1997.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the power of locus poenitentiae was not available to the respondents once order had taken legal effect and certain valuable rights had been created in favour of the petitioners. He relies on the judgments in the cases of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407), Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Yousaf, U.D.C. Personnel Branch, Rawalpindi and 4 others (PLD 1992 SC 147). Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman and another v. Mst. Salma Afroze and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 263), Yousaf Ali v Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 5 others and Asmatullah Khan v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Forest Department, Lahore and 2 others (1996 PLC (C.S.) 851). He further submitted that if an order is found to be without jurisdiction then the writ jurisdiction is attracted notwithstanding availability of the alternate remedy. He relies on the case of Pir Sabir Shah v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1994 SC 738). He has further relied on the judgment of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another (1994 SCMR 2232) to contend that the order of reversion could not be passed without following the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the matter in question relates to fitness and suitability of the persons to be appointed to a particular post which matter was specifically excluded from the domain of the Service 1997 Tribunal in terms of section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has argued that the subject matter of these writ petitions has no nexus with the fitness and suitability of a person to be appointed to a particular post and is germane to the terms and conditions of service for which the Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction. He submits that by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court is excluded in such like matters. He relies on the judgments in the cases of The Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Latif (PLD 1988 SC 387) and I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab. The matter of reversion is one of the matters which is specifically mentioned in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as one of the terms and conditions of service. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case which may warrant the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It has been held in the cases of Mohib Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1975 Lahore 813), Sher Muhammad v. Director‑General of Pakistan, Telegraphs and Telephones Department and another (PLD 1979 Kar. 1), Muhammad Mustafa v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Communication and another (1984 PLC (C.S.) 353) and 1994 PLC (C.S.) 862 by the superior Courts that the matter of reversion squarely falls for determination by an appropriate Service Tribunal.

6. In this view of the matter, all these writ petitions fail and are dismissed in limine. A.A./M-270/L Petitions dismissed