1999 PLP 2129 (YLR)

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order 27‑8‑1998 Noor Muhammad petitioner was transferred in place of Muhammad Ramzan which order was cancelled vide order dated 4‑9‑1998. Later on the petitioner was again transferred vice Munir Ahmad vide order dated 10‑9‑1998 and which order was again cancelled vide order dated 14‑9‑1998. On the same day another order was passed whereby the petitioner was transferred to Government Middle School, Kot Haibat Markaz Saddar whereas Muhammad Kaleem/respondent No.4 was shifted to Government Primary School Qambar Wala Markaz Dharama, that later on order dated 14‑9‑1998 was again cancelled vide order dated 10‑11‑1998. He, thus, submits that order dated 10‑11‑1998 is tainted with mala fide and is in violation of the directions enunciated in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530 as such be set aside.

2. Conversely the stand of learned counsel for respondent No.4 is that with the cancellation of order dated 4‑9‑1998 and 14‑9‑1998 a fresh and independent order of transfer dated 14‑9‑1998 was passed by the Deputy District Education Officer/respondent No.3 whereby Noor Muhammad/petitioner and‑ Muhammad Kaleem respondent No.4 were .transferred as mentioned above, that Muhammad Kaleem responded No.4 felt aggrieved of the slid order dated 14‑9‑1998 and filed an appeal with the Director, Elementary Education/respondent No.2 who cancelled the said order vide order dated 10‑11‑1998. He contends that as Noor Muhammad/petitioner was not aggrieved of order dated 14‑9‑1998 so he did not challenge the same and it holds the field to the extent of petitioner. He further contends that order dated 14‑9‑1998 has no nexus with the orders dated 27‑8‑1998 and 10‑9‑1998 and respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 10‑11‑1998 in accordance with law. He further contends that the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of service, as such it falls within the purview of Service Tribunal and this Court has got no jurisdiction under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

3. A narration of facts reveals that Deputy District Education Officer (ME)/respondent No.3 has been passing orders one after the other but has been safeguarding the interest of Noor Muhammad petitioner, as it is Noor Muhammad who figures in all the transfer orders whereas his counterpart has been changing each order which has been passed with an interval of 6 to 8 days. This conduct of D.D.E.O./respondent No.3 not only tells upon his bona fide but it appears to have been passed with extraneous consideration.

4. Be that as it may, the instructions/directions contained in Zahid Akhtar v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 530 are to be complied with by the authorities dealing with the matters pertaining to posting and transfers of civil servants.

5. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore for his information and taking necessary action against Deputy District Education Officer/respondent No.3. He is directed to see that all responsible officers, comply with the direction/instruction contained in the authority delivered by the Apex Court of the Country.

6. With this observation the petition stands disposed of. Q. M. H. /M. A.K./N‑141 /L