2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(iii) Syed Aftab Haider v. Government of Sindh 2002 PLC (C.S). 1342. (iv) Abdul Saeed v. Secretary Education and others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1468. (v) Alamgir Khan v. Government of N.‑W.F.P. and others for 1998 PLC (C.S.) 504; (vi) Nisar Abbas, General Manager v. Abdul Rashid Khan PLJ 1999 Lah. 145; (vii) Dr. Ahmad Suleman Waris v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others PLD 1997 SC 382; (viii) Zahid Akhtar v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530; (ix) Rana Habib‑ur‑Rehman Khan v. Government of the Punjab 2001 PLC (C.S.) 450.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Bahawalpur has strongly/vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by filing the comments and stating through arguments, that this Court has got no jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to entertain the writ petition or to pass the order in the instant writ petition, because the question relates to the terms and conditions of the service. To support his point of view he has referred to Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 2280, Government of the Punjab and others v. Muhammad Zafar Bhatti and others PLD 2004 SC 317 and Fauzia Siddique Qureshi v. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others 2004 SCMR

521. He has also urged that the petitioner has got another alternate adequate remedy before the Service Tribunal so, he should not be granted any relief in the writ. He relies upon Syed Imran Raza Zaidi v. Government of Punjab through S&GAD and 2 others 1996 SCMR 645 for that proposition. Replying to this question the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that an order, which is a coram non judice can be set aside by this Court.

3. I have considered the lengthy arguments of both the learned counsel and scanned the record of the case minutely.

4. The essential fact cannot be denied that the petitioner is a Government servant and the Service Rules, Regulations, Terms and Conditions are applicable to him. As far as the consensus of the ruling is concerned the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court has clearly expounded that even in cases of coram non judice orders, the. High Court cannot interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 because the bar having been brought in the Constitution through Article

212. From the following authorities. I have formed this view:‑‑ (i) Muhammad Yasin Saqib v. Chairman Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and others NLR 2003 Civil 32; (ii) Mahmood Ahmad v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and 2 others PLJ 1995 Lah. 222; (iii) Zahid Akhtar v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1995 SC

530. So, I do not deem it appropriate to pass any order in this case of the petitioner, as the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have prohibited such a course to be adopted. The petitioner having got another alternate, adequate, efficacious remedy of the Service Tribunal, this writ is not maintainable. So, I dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑597/L Petition dismissed.