1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Assistant Advocate General and Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th February, 1980. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑Petitioner No. 1 is an Accounts Clerk in the office of the District Health Officer, Gujranwala and petitioner No. 2 is a Junior Clerk working in the Civil Hospital Wazirabad. They have been transferred from their respective places of posting by the order of Mr. M. B. Khawaja, Director, Health Services Punjab on 29th January, 1980 and their services were placed at the disposal of the Deputy Director, Health Services, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, with immediate effect for posting in his Division. It appears that the transfers have been ordered to enable an inquiry to be made against them alongwith an officer of the Department under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Aggrieved by the order of transfer, they challenged it by filing a writ petition (W. P. No. 1216‑S/80) before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were governed by the West Pakistan Health Department Ministerial Service (Sub‑Regional) Rules, 1965. According to Rule 10 of the said rules members of the service were liable to transfer anywhere in West Pakistan (Punjab) and it was held that their assertion that they cannot be transferred out of the District was without any basis. It was also observed that no material was placed on the record to show that the transfer was not in the public interest or in the interest of exigencies of service or is in any manner male fide. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the said order. The petitioners have appeared personally and argued their case with some emotion and considerable vehemence. According to them, the order of transfer is malicious, capricious and is motivated as they were trying to expose the misdeeds of certain superior officers. It is urged that their children are studying in the educational institutions at the places of their present posting and they cannot be shifted to the place of transfer without disturbing their education and being low paid employees they cannot afford to maintain two residences. According to them, an higher officer, who is also allegedly being proceeding against alongwith them has been suspended but allowed to remain at the place of his posting and that they would also be preferred to be suspended and allowed to remain at the places of their present posting rather than being transferred outside it especially when the proposed inquiry is no where in sight and that the petitioners are going to be sent away for an indefinite period of time and moreover even the place of their posting has not been satisfied. On our directions, the Advocate‑General after obtaining instructions has informed us that they will be posted at Sargodha or Toba Tek Singh according to their choice and that the allegation that they have been transferred for mala fide reasons is quite baseless. Under the law no Govern ment servant can raise any legal objection to be transferred and posted to a place other than where he may presently be posted. Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 is relevant and reads as under: "Posting and Transfer.‑Every civil servant shall be liable to serve anywhere within or outside the province in any post under the Government of the Punjab or the Federal Government or any Provincial Government or a local authority or a corporation or a body set up or established by any such Government: Provided that, where a civil servant is required to serve in a post outside his service or cadre, his terms and conditions of service as to his pay shall not be less favourable than those to which he would have been entitled if he had not been required to serve." Since the authorities have a right to make transfer of any Government servant under the aforesaid provision of law and their terms and conditions are not being affected thereby the present petitioners cannot be deemed to be aggrieved persons in the eye of law so as to maintain a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The said petition was rightly rejected by the High Court and there is no ground for interference. The petition, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.