2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

Through this writ petition, Muhammad Saeed, petitioner who was previously appointed as Naib-Tehsildar in the Directorate of Housing and Physical Planning, Circle Bahawalpur was adjusted in Revenue Department as Additional Naib Tehsildar, Khairpur Tamewali, against a vacant post through an order dated 8-11-2001, passed by the District Coordination Officer, Bahawalpur upon the abolition of that department. Aggrieved from that order, a complaint was filed by Abdul Jabbar and another before Provincial Ombudsman, who had sought an advice from the Board of Revenue, Punjab in this matter. The Secretary Board of Revenue, Punjab replied through its letter dated 5-8-2003 -that adjustment of writ petitioner was not in accordance with the Naib Tehsildari Rules of Revenue Department. Upon this, Provincial Ombudsman advised the Board of Revenue to take further action. Upon the direction of Board of Revenue dated 25-3-2004; the District Coordination Officer withdrew his earlier order, dated 8-11-2001 on 20-11-2004. In the meanwhile, the Department of Housing and Physical Planning was revived and the writ petitioner was repatriated to his parent department through the impugned order passed on 20-11-2004. Aggrieved from this order of repatriation passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Naib Tehsildar, within the Revenue Department on the basis of letter dated 21-1-2004, issued by the Service and General Administration Department, Government of the Punjab (Regulation Wing). After the adjustment was made, the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the Government of the Punjab and the Government had replied that District Coordination Officer was fully competent to absorb/transfer the official of equal grade of defunct department against a vacant post in another department under the District Government Rules of Business, 2001. This letter was forwarded to the District Coordination Officer on 23-7-2002. It is stated that the adjustment of the petitioner was not to disturb airy Naib Tehsildar working in the cadre, as the petitioner was adjusted at the bottom of seniority list. Petitioner's order of repatriation having been passed after about three years of service in the Revenue Department is without any lawful authority, illegal and without legal justification. On the basis of Rule of Locus Poenitentiae, learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be repatriated to his original post of parent department. He has referred to Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407, Chairman, Minimum Wage Board, Peshawar and another v. Fayyaz Khan Khattak 1999 SCMR 1004, Syed Fazal-e-Mahboob v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad 2000 SCMR 489 and Muhammad Shoib and 2 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through the Collector D.I. Khan and others 2005 SCMR

85. Learned counsel further submits that the Housing and Physical Planning Department has got no post of Naib Tehsildar at present, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

3. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. submits that the basic order which was passed on 8-11-2001 in case of petitioner was with regard to his adjustment and was not for absorption of the petitioner into Revenue Department, therefore, impugned order cannot be considered to have been passed in violation of Rules of Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 1990 as amended upto March, 2002, which has provided a method and manner in filling up the posts of Naib Tehsildar. As per learned A.A.-G. the petitioner cannot be adjusted/absorbed in the Revenue Department as against those Rules because it would create anew method and manner of appointment which is not permitted by law.

4. In reply to it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Housing and Physical Planning Department was abolished, therefore the petitioner was adjusted/absorbed against the vacant post and cannot be repatriated.

5. After considering the arguments and from the perusal of the record, I have found that no doubt, Muhammad Saeed, writ petitioner was serving with Housing and Physical Planning Department and was adjusted in Revenue Department as Naib Tehsildar but after the Department was restored, he was directed to be repatriated through the impugned order. According to order, dated 8-11-2001, Muhammad Saeed, the present petitioner was adjusted against the vacant post but was not absorbed in Revenue Department. Moreover, the Government servants of Revenue Department are governed by Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 1990 as amended upto March, 2002, which has provided a procedure, method and manner for recruitment of Naib Tehsildar. There is no law quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by which another method or procedure in violation of Rules can be adopted and a person can be brought into service of Revenue Department without following those Rules. I have not come across such rules or provision of any law which could authorize the District Coordination Officer or any other high-ups of Revenue Department to violate these Rules and allow a person to enter into that service in contravention of those Rules. District Government Rules of Business, 2001 cannot be invoked to change the specific and particular method and character, the Rules have prescribed for that particular service unless Rules are amended specifically for that purpose. Moreover the writ petitioner was being repatriated to that Department which he had himself chosen for his service at the inception for which he should not hesitate. As regards the department having no seat of Naib Tehsildar, it is the liability of that Department to create a new seat or adjust the writ petitioner. Resultantly the instant writ petition has no force and cannot be accepted which is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-353/L Petition dismissed.