2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was serving. as Medical Officer, BHU, Wandar vide order dated 5-3-2010. He was also given temporary charge of RHC Chowk Sarwar Shaheed. On 18-5-2010 the order dated 5-3-2010 was cancelled and petitioner was directed to report at the original station. i.e. Wander. Then he was permanently transferred to RI-IC Chowk Sarwar Shaheed vide order dated 10-6-2010 and again he was transferred to RHC Baseera on 11-7-2011. This order has been assailed. by the petitioner through this constitutional petition on the grounds that it is unlawful and against the policy of the Government of Punjab. Actually Akbar Ali, a corrupt Dispenser, had managed the said transfer of the petitioner so it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 11-7-2011 may be declared to be illegal and it be set aside. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has referred to 2009 PLC (C.S.) 44 LHR. (judgment of a Single Bench of this court).?? -

2. The, learned AAG contends that the transfer relates to the terms and conditions of service so this court has no jurisdiction to dwell upon the matter in view of constitutional bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.

4. There is no cavil to the proposition that transfer relates to the terms and conditions of service and no civil servant can claim to be posted at a particular place. He can be transferred at any place and under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matters relating to transfer. would refer to 2011 SCMR 592, wherein the apex A court held that before entertaining a constitutional petition the High Court may determine as to whether it had jurisdiction to decide any matter relating to terms and conditions of a civil servant. In view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere into the matter of transfer. 1 would also like to refer to "1999 SCMR 1832" (Rai Ahmad Ali v. Province of Punjab and others) wherein it was held as under: "The order impugned before the High Court was open to challenge before the Services Tribunal after availing the departmental remedy. Article 212 of the Constitution is a bar against filing of a constitutional petition in relation to the terms and conditions of civil servants. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable in relation to any matter connected with the terms and conditions. of service in respect whereof the appropriate Service Tribunal is possessed of the requisite jurisdiction, in view of the provisions contained in Article 212 ? of the Constitution. This court has also held that even in cases where the order is alleged to be mala fide, the bar of Article 212 is attracted."

5. The order impugned before the High Court was a transfer order. Besides the case-law referred to above this court has already held in 2011 PLC (C. S.) 324 (Jafar Ali Shah v. Province of Punjab and others) that it is well settled by now that the question of posting of a Government servant squarely falls within the domain of the competent 1 authority subject to law and -rules made there-under. The question of posting/transfer relates to terms and conditions of Government servant and Service Tribunal would have exclusive jurisdiction to dilate upon such matters and the constitutit .al jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked to get such controversies resolved as Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan ousts the jurisdiction of all other courts and order of the Departmental Authority even though without jurisdiction or mala fide can be challenged only before the Services Tribunal and the jurisdiction of Civil Court and High Court was barred. The plea of mala fide does not confer upon High Court jurisdiction to act in the matter in view of the constitutional ouster.

6. In the light of the above discussion the writ petition is not maintainable and the impugned order relating to the transfer of the petitioner warrants no interference by this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution. So the petition is hereby dismissed in limine. The petitioner, if so advised, may avail the alternate remedy by way of filing a representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in accordance with the policy of the Government of the Punjab. H.B.T./M-4/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.