2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• Shahid Ali Awan, Advocate for Petitioner.
• Mir Tanveer Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
• 3. Mr. Shahid Awan, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein, were transferred against each other's posts, vide notification dated 16.08.2024. Later on, vide notification dated 11.09.2024, the transfer notification dated 16.08.2024, was cancelled from its date of issuance. The learned Advocate further contended that in compliance of the notification dated 11.09.2024, the petitioner, herein, had joined his place of posting. Respondent No.1, herein, challenged the notification dated 11.09.2024 before the Service Tribunal by way of appeal. The learned Service Tribunal admitted the appeal for regular hearing and suspended the notification dated 11.09.2024 through impugned order dated 11.09.2024. The learned Advocate stated that the department has sent the requisition of the post of Assistant Education Officer against which respondent No.1, herein, was transferred, to tile Public Service Commission and the selection process of the said post is under completion, therefore, the notification dated 16.08.2024 has rightly been cancelled by the department, vide notification dated 11.09.2024. It is the prerogative of the department to cancel, amend or modify the notifications but the learned Service Tribunal has illegally suspended the notification dated 11.09.2024. He added that the department while submitting the objections before the Service Tribunal mentioned the reasons for cancellation of the transfer notification dated 16.08.2024, therefore, the learned Service Tribunal has illegally admitted the appeal for regular hearing and suspended the notification dated 11.09.2024. He lastly prayed that important legal question of public importance is involved in this petition, hence, grant of leave is justified.
• 4. On the other hand, Mir Tanveer Hussain, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 defended the impugned order and stated that the same is perfect and legal. He contended that the transfer notification dated 16.08.2024 was issued by the competent authority in accordance with law and rules but the same was cancelled after a period of only 25 days without assigning any reason. He added that the learned Service Tribunal has suspended the departmental notification dated 11.09.2024 subject to objections of other side thus, the petitioner has an ample opportunity to submit his point of view before the Service Tribunal and no illegality has been committed by the learned Service Tribunal while issuing the impugned order dated 14.09.2024. In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate referred to and relied upon the case law reported as (2022 SCR 62) and (2015 SCR 968) and prayed for dismissal of petition.
• 5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates representing the parties and gone through the record made available along with the impugned order. According to the facts of the case, the departmental authority issued the transfer notification dated 16.08.2024 and the same was recalled through the impugned departmental notification dated 11.09.2024 without assigning any reason. This Court has held in a number of cases that such practice of cancellation of the transfer notifications within a short span of time without assigning any reason, on the face of it, is a malpractice and such orders/notifications cannot be protected by the Courts, therefore, without recording any detail observations, in our view, the impugned departmental notification dated 11-9-2024, on the face of it, is prima facie a proof of exercise of powers in an injudicious manner and without proper application of mind.
• 6. So far as the contention of the learned Advocate representing the petitioner that the department has assigned the reasons for cancellation of the transfer notification dated 16-8-2024 in the objection/written statement submitted before the Service Tribunal, is concerned, it is revealed from the departmental notification dated 11-9-2024 that no reason whatsoever has been assigned/mentioned in the notification dated 11-9-2024 for cancellation of the transfer notification dated 16-8-2024 within a short span of time i.e. 25 days. The reasons/justifications for cancellation of a lawful notification have to be mentioned in the cancellation notification rather than in the objections/written statement, therefore, this argument of the learned counsel is hereby repelled.
• 7. Thus, the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 14-9-2024. The learned Advocate representing respondent No.1 has rightly relied upon the case law reported as (2022 SCR 62) and (2015 SCR 968).

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree