1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aqil Mirza, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, GUJRANWALA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Aqil Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Arif Bhindar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 212 & 199‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Bar of jurisdiction contained in Art.212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Petitioner/civil servant who was transferred from one place of working to another, was transferred back to place of working from where he was transferred‑‑‑Civil servant was fully satisfied with order of his transfer but he had sought direction through Constitutional petition to the effect that he should not be transferred in future from that place of working‑‑‑Such direction could not be issued by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Even otherwise all matters relating to matters of terms and conditions of service of civil servant including transfer and posting had to be agitated before appropriate Service Tribunal because of the bar of Art.212 of Constitution of Pakistan.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was transferred from Gujranwala to Laddhewala Union Council. However, vide the impugned order has been transferred back to Gujranwala on 19‑7‑1996. He is,. therefore, satisfied with the aforesaid order but despite this learned counsel wants a direction from this Court that in future the petitioner should not be transferred from Gujranwala. I am afraid, such a direction to govern future actions cannot be issued in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Be that as it may, the petitioner is a civil servant and all matters relating to his terms and conditions of service, including transfer and posting matters have to be agitated before the appropriate Service Tribunal, because of the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution. This petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑190/L Petition dismissed