2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J.

The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 10.12.2024, passed in Service Appeal No.468/2024.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent No.1, herein, was posted as Female Attendant DHQ Hospital Neelum, wherefrom she was transferred and posted as Female Attendant BHM Challehana, after a period of more than 8 years, whereas the petitioner, herein, was transferred from the post of Female Attendant BHM. Challehana and posted as DHQ Hospital Neelum, in place of the respondent No.1, herein, after a period of 3-1/2 years, vide order dated 10.06.2024. The said transfer order was cancelled from the date of its issuance vide order dated 21.06.2024. Respondent No.1, herein, challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. After necessary proceedings, the learned Service Tribunal through the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2024, accepted the appeal and set aside the departmental order dated 21.06.2024. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgment of the Service Tribunal by filing the instant petition for leave to appeal.

3. Raja Ibrar Hussain, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner argued the case at some length and submitted that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was issued on the proposal of the Minister for Law, Justice, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights, who lacked the authority to make such a proposal for the transfer of the employees of the Health Department. He further submitted that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was politically motivated and issued with mala fide intent just to accommodate respondent No.1, therefore, the same was rightly cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 21.06.2024. The learned Advocate asserted that respondent No.1 challenged the cancellation order dated 21.06.2024 by filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Health Department, in the comments submitted before the Service Tribunal, unequivocally stated that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was issued in violation of the prescribed procedure provided under law. Despite these submissions, the learned Service Tribunal failed to consider these significant aspects of the case and illegally accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the order dated 21.06.2024. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate, referred to and relied upon the case reported as [2014 SCR 878] and prayed for grant of leave to appeal.

4. Conversely, Raja Arshad Khan, the learned Advocate, while appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, forcefully defended the impugned judgment while submitting that the same is legal and perfect in all aspects, hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted under law. He further submitted that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was issued on the basis of stay period but after a short span of time i.e. 11 days, the same was cancelled from the date of its issuance, without assigning any reason. He further argued that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was not issued on the proposal of the Minser Law, Justice, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights. The copy of the proposal submitted by the petitioner is forged and fictitious and this fact has also been admitted by the DHO in the comments filed before the learned Service Tribunal. The learned Service Tribunal dealt with the proposition in accordance with law and has committed no illegality while accepting the appeal and setting aside the order dated 21.06.2024. The petitioner has failed to point out any legal question of public importance involved in the petition for leave to appeal, hence, the same merits dismissal.

5. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar on behalf of the learned Advocates, representing the parties and gone through the record made available along with the impugned judgment. A perusal of record reveals that vide transfer order dated 10.06.2021, the petitioner and respondent No.1, herein, were transferred against each other posts, after the stay period of 31/2 years and 8 years, respectively. The stay period mentioned in the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 is admitted, which is more than sufficient period serving at one station. Under section 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, a civil servant is obliged to serve under the Government inside or outside of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, wherever he/she is posted. A civil servant has no absolute right to remain posted at a particular station for an indefinite period or to seek posting at a station of his/her own choice. Our this view finds support from a case reported as Imtiaz Ghani v. Azad Government and 6 others [2016 SCR 1094], whereby it was observed as under:- "

7. It may also be observed here that under section 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 a civil servant has no vested right to remain posted at one place for an indefinite period and he Can be posted anywhere in exigency of service....." Similarly, in another case reported as Nusrat Jabeen v. Azad Government and 7 others [2014 SCR 456], it has been observed as under:- "

6. Under section 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, a civil servant is obliged to serve under the Government inside or outside Azad Jammu and Kashmir wherever he/she is posted. A civil servant cannot claim to remain posted at one station for an indefinite period or seek posting of his/her own choice ."

6. So far as the contention of the learned Advocate, representing the petitioner that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was issued based on the proposal of the Minister for Law, Justice Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights, is concerned, the same has no substance because the department in its comments filed before the Service Tribunal has disowned any such proposal on the ground that the signature of the Law Minister affixed on the said proposal is forged and fictitious. The other argument of the learned Advocate, representing the petitioner that the Department in its comments filed before the Service Tribunal has admitted that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024, was issued against the procedure prescribed under law is also misconceived. It appears from the record that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was issued on the basis of the stay period which has been cancelled just after a period of 11 days, without assigning any reason, vide order dated 21.06.2024. In this state of affairs, the learned Service Tribunal has committed no illegality while accepting the appeal and setting aside the order dated 21.06.2024. Reference may be made to a case reported as "Naila Bashir v. Syeda Zanib-un-Nisa and 4 others" (2013 PLC (C.S.) 831) wherein it was observed by this court as under. ".... We have perused the transfer order. In the transfer order Zanib-un-Nisa is shown to be posted as Senior Teacheress, Girls High School Darra Sher Khan for a period of more than 7 years and Naila Bashir is shown to have been posted as Senior Teacheress in Girls Middle School Taie Khas for a period of more than 10 years. Due to the period of stay, the transfer order is a valid one but we deplore the practice of issuing transfer orders in the manner the orders were issued in the instant case." In the case reported as "Raja Muhammad Kamran v. Secretary Local Governments and 4 others" [2015 SCR 968], this Court has held that the practice of cancellation of the transfer orders within a short span of time, without assigning any reason, on the face of it is a malpractice and such orders cannot be protected by the Courts. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- ".... This Court in a number of cases observed that such practice of cancellation of the transfer orders within a short span of time without assigning any reason, on the face of it, is a malpractice and such orders cannot be protected by the Courts. Therefore, without recording any detail observations in our view the impugned departmental order dated 11.01.2023 on the face of it is prima facie proof of exercise of powers in an injudicious manner and without proper application of mind."

7. In view of the above, we are of the unanimous opinion that the leaned Service Tribunal while handing down the impugned judgment has dealt with the proposition involved in the matter in a legal manner and has committed no illegality while setting aside the impugned departmental order dated 21.06.2024. The petitioner has failed to point out any legal question of public importance involved in the petition for leave to appeal. According to the celebrated principle of law, leave cannot be granted in every case as a routine, just to create false hopes in the mind of the litigant. The case law referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner having distinguishable facts is not applicable in the case in hand. Resultantly, finding no force in this petition for leave to appeal the same is hereby dismissed. Since the petition for leave to appeal has been dismissed, the application for interim relief is also consigned to record. Consequently the status quo order earlier issued by this on 19.12.2024, is hereby recalled. MQ/13/SC(AJK) Petition dismissed.