2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed AZIZ-UL-HASSAN Versus DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | Syed AZIZ-UL-HASSAN Versus DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed AZIZ-UL-HASSAN Versus DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rasheed Rashid for Petitioner.
- 6. The contention of the learned counsel is that the transfer order dated 14‑7‑2001 mala fide, may not be looked into by this Court as it is for the department to comply with the instructions/directions as contained in "Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural development, Lahore and two others" (PLD 1995 SC 530) deleting with the matters pertaining to posting and transfer of civil servants. Reliance Ls also placed on the case of "Noor Muhammad v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Education Punjab, Lahore and three others" (2000 PLC (C.S.) 204).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 212
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Matter relating to terms and conditions of service
Dispute was with regard to transfer of petitioner who was working in Education Department--.-Validity
Petitioner being public servant could not challenge the transfer order as the same was a part of terms and conditions of service of the petitioner
High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Constitutional petition in view of bar as contained in Art.212 of the Constitution
Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Govt and Rural Development, Lahore and two others PLD 1995 SC 530 and Noor Muhammad v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Education Punjab. Lahore and three others 2000 PLC CS 204 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Abdur Rasheed Rashid for Petitioner. Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner prays that orders dated 14‑7‑2001 and 17‑7‑2001 may be declared as without lawful authority and violative of the constitution.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is Senior Special Education Teacher, presently working against the post of Headmaster, Government Deaf and Defective Hearing School, Bahawalpur. It is stated that on 17‑4‑1998, the petitioner was entrusted additional duties to work as Incharge Head‑master, Government Deaf and Defective Hearing School, Vehari and vide further that orders dated 30‑4‑1999, 2‑7‑1999 and 13‑5 2000, the petitioner was directed to continue the dual charge at Bahawalpur and Vehari.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been transferred from Bahawalpur to Vehari by order No.24/116‑Admn‑98/10515 dated 14‑7‑2001 and respondent No.3‑Sahib Khan is junior to the petitioner was posted as Incharge Headmaster, Government Deaf and Defective Hearing School, Bahawalpur. It is also stated that the order No.24/119/Admn‑98/10594 dated 17‑7‑2001, the earlier order dated 14‑7‑2001 through which the petitioner has been transferred from Bahawalpur to Vehari was modified and respondent No.4 Muhammad Akhtar Ali, Senior Special Education Teacher, presently working against the post of Headmaster, Government Deaf and Defective Hearing School, Khanewal was transferred to Bahawalpur and Sahib Khan‑respondent No.3 was transferred against respondent No.4 at Government Deaf and Defective Hearing School, Khanewal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the transfer order dated 14‑7‑2001 is ‑mala fide as the petitioner submitted an application dated 4‑12‑1999 to the Director, Special Education, Punjab, Lahore, respondent No. 1 and prayed that the additional charge of Vehari may be given to some Other person as it was an additional duty imposed on the petitioner without any additional pay and allowance and instead any relief to the petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred to Vehari.
5. The petitioner is admittedly a public servant. He was having additional charge duty to work as Incharge Headmaster, Government Deaf and Detective Hearing School, Vehari by virtue of order dated 14‑7‑2001, this additional charge has been withdrawn from him. Simultaneously, the petitioner has been transferred from Bahawalpur to Vehari without any additional charge, which has been withdrawn on the application of the petitioner. The subsequent order dated 17‑7‑2001 modifying the earlier order is not relatable to the petitioner.
6. The contention of the learned counsel is that the transfer order dated 14‑7‑2001 mala fide, may not be looked into by this Court as it is for the department to comply with the instructions/directions as contained in "Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural development, Lahore and two others" (PLD 1995 SC 530) deleting with the matters pertaining to posting and transfer of civil servants. Reliance Ls also placed on the case of "Noor Muhammad v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Education Punjab, Lahore and three others" (2000 PLC (C.S.) 204).
7. The petitioner being public servant, even otherwise cannot challenge the transfer order as the transfer is a part of terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain petition under Article 199, in view of bar as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑545/L Petition dismissed.