1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Rana Muhammad Sarwar v. Government of Punjab through Services, General Administration and Information Department and another 1990 SCMR 999 and Muhammad Azhar v. General Manager (Operation), Power, WAPDA PLD 1990 Lah. 352 distinguished. Muhammad Ashfaq v. The State PLD 1973 SC 368 and Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and another PLD 1976 SC 315 ref Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai for Petitioner. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondent. The petitioner herein, Syed Hussain Asif Hussaini, was working as Senior Observer in the Pakistan Meteorological Department and posted at Pilot Balloon Observatory, Lahore. The Director‑General, Meteorological Services, Karachi, not a respondent herein, ordered the transfer of the petitioner from Pilot Balloon Observatory, Lahore to Meteorological Office, Sakardu on 30‑10‑1991. On 8‑1‑1992 the respondent/Director Regional Meteorological Centre, Lahore informed the petitioner that in continuation of his office memo. of even number 206‑213, dated 6‑1‑1992, he may not be relieved on his transfer from P.B.O. Lahore to M.O. Skardu `till further orders'. It was on 30‑6‑1992 that `in partial modification to the O.M. of even number dated 8‑1‑1992', that the respondent Director relieved the petitioner w.e.f. 1‑7‑1992 (F.N.) to proceed on transfer `from P.B.O. Lahore to M.O. Sakardu vide R.M.C. Lahore Office Order No. A‑3/3(2)/III/1908, dated 30‑10‑1991' (Annex E/1). The petitioner has filed the instant Constitutional petition to challenge the vires of this order on the ground that the same has been rendered mala fide and is without jurisdiction. His case was that as the order of the Director‑General, Meteorological Services, Karachi had been suspended by the latter, the respondent‑Director was not competent to render the impugned order dated 30‑6‑1992.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed couple of opportunities to address arguments on the competence or otherwise of this Constitutional petition in this Court. When his attention was drawn to, among others, Rana Muhammad Sarwar v. Government of Punjab through Services, General Administration and Information Department and another (1990 SCMR 999) wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that all the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant may be challenged on the ground of mala fide of law or mala fide of fact and that: As under Article 212(3) of the Constitution the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the terms and conditions and the High Court h'' appropriately held that the matter was a fit one for examination by the service Tribunal', he was content with submitting that even if the question relating to mala fides in the transfer orders of civil servants can be challenged only before the appropriate Service Tribunal, the petitioner will be within his right in asking for appropriate relief from this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 as well if he can succeed in establishing that ‑ the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. In this behalf reference has been made to Muhammad Azhar v. General Manager (Operation), Power, WAPDA PLD 1990 Lah. 352).

3. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition and perused the available record. There is no force in the contention that the order dated 30‑6‑1992 was not passed by the competent authority i.e. the Director‑General, Meteorological Services, Karachi. According to para. 252 of the file, the Director‑General, Meteorological Services, Karachi was contacted on telephone by the respondent. Director on 30‑6‑1992 and the former gave his approval to relieve the petitioner for joining at Sakardu. Photo copy of paras. 250 to 253 of the file has been placed on the record. It was thereafter that the order dated 30‑6‑1992 was issued with reference to memo. dated 6‑1‑1992 and in partial modification of memo, dated 8‑1‑1992. Be that as it may, even the question regarding alleged lack of jurisdiction of the respondent‑Director can be raised in appeal before the appropriate Service Tribunal. See Muhammad Ashfaq v. The State (PLD 1973 SC 368); Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1976 SC 315). The instant petition is not competent before this Court and the same is dismissed in limine. F.R./H‑40/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.