2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KHALIDA RACHID, J.‑‑‑Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, Wilayat Ali, Office Assistant, serving in Local Government and Rural Development Department, Mohmand Agency, has called into question hid transfer order dated 3‑6‑2001.

2. The stance of Mr. Muhammad Nasir Mahfuz, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was transferred on the present post on 31‑3‑2001 on the recommendation of Departmental Placement Scrutiny Committee, where he hardly spent three months when he has been ordered back to his old post under the orders of Director‑General who had no authority, for, the office of the Director‑General was abolished with effect from 1‑7‑2000. Taking serious exception to the impugned order, the learned counsel submitted that as per new positing and transfer policy issued vide Letter No.SOR‑I (S&GAD) 1‑1/85 (VOI.I) dated 22nd December, 1999, the months of March and August are fixed for posting and transfer of the officers/officials. In addition, it has been further provided under para.I of sub‑para (iii) that while making transfer of an officer/official to and from settled area to FATA, approval of the Governor is to be sought.

3. Be that as it may, it is admitted that the petitioner is civil servant. It is also well‑settled by now that matters of transfer and posting of a civil servant are relatable to the terms and conditions of service, therefore, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Services Tribunal which is a competent Authority to consider the transfer order if issued without lawful authority and is coram non judice. The Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that the transfer order is based on mala fide, coram non judice or issued without lawful authority. For the convenience of the learned counsel, we may refer to the oft‑quoted authorities on the subject as under:‑‑ (i)???????? Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Dr. Safdar Mahmood (PLD 1983 SC 100). (ii)??????? Mst. Shagufta Yunas v. Director of Education (1992 PLC (C.S.) 906). (iii)?????? Dr. Alif Arif v Secretary, Health, Government of Punjab and another (PLD 1993 Lahore 286). (iv)?????? Syed Afzal AhrLd Haidri v. Secretary Defence Production Division, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 3 others (1991 SCMR 477). (v)??????? Miss Rukhsana Ijaz v. Secretary Education, Punjab and others (1997 SCMR 167). (vi)?????? Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry v. Ahmad Nawaz Malik and others (1997 SCMR 170). (vii) ???? Rashid Ahmad v. Mst. Jiwan and 5 others (1997 SCMR 171). (viii)????? Syed Mazhar Hussain Bukhari v. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and others (1998 SCMR 1948).

4. In passing we may not forget to note that in such matters when it has been established and consistently held by the apex Court that transfer orders/posting orders are relatable to the terms and conditions of service and S could be challenged before the Service Tribunal, learned counsel though being fully aware of this `view of the august Supreme Court still keeps overburdening this Court with such frivolous petitions against all professional norms.

5. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./343/P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.