Transfer

Employee could be transferred from one local council to another and could not claim to be posted at one place as of a right

Transfer and posting orders were made for administrative reasons in public interest which could not be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction by High Court unless illegality or violation of statutory rules had been committed

Employee having joined his new office after his transfer, was estopped by his conduct to file the constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

­Appellant, a Deputy District Education Officer, had alleged that authorities had transferred him in haste and against the Transfer Policy

Record had revealed that appellant was transferred due to his continuous poor performance in achieving goals indicators, set in Chief Minister Road Map for Education Sector; and despite repeated instructions in Monthly District Review Committee meetings, no visible improvement had been made to meet the target

Appellant relied on an appreciation letter awarded to him by concerned District Education Authorities, but same was inadmissible in the eyes of law, because it did not carry any date or period, and was uncertified photocopy

Appellant had conceded that present appeal was immature, as same was filed before result of departmental appeal by him

Appellant was transferred to the impugned place of posting on his own request, hence his placement outside his district of domicile, was dependent upon his will and choice

Counsel for appellant, had not been able to bring to the light any documentary evidence, which could have substantiated the genuineness of claim of the appellant, nor there was any evidence otherwise available in that regard

Appellant validly submitted his departmental appeal to the concerned authority, but without waiting for the prescribed time, he had preferred present appeal before Service Tribunal

Appellant had pointed out that impugned transfer order had been issued in violation of the Policy of 2013, but neither such policy had been appended with the appeal, nor same had been produced during the course of proceedings

Appellant, had not succeeded to put forth any mention of illegality, wrong doing or political influence in the issuance of the impugned order

Appeal was disposed of being premature and non-maintainable

Provincial Secretary Education, was directed to decide the departmental appeal of the appellant if pending with him after fulfilling all legal and codal formalities preferably within a period of 30 days.

Contention of the petitioner civil servant was that no consultation was made with the parent department before sending him back to his parent department

Validity

Purpose of consultation was that the officer who was being sent back to his parent department, would not face hardships and the department shall adjust him in an appropriate manner

Notification for sending the petitioner back to his parent department was issued by the Services and General Administration Department and in compliance of said order the petitioner had reported back to his parent department

Civil Servant could not claim that he shall remain on deputation on a particular- post without consent of the borrowing department

Under the deputation policy, the period of deputation of a civil servant shall not exceed five years

Initially the period of deputation might be three years and after completion of three years' period the Government servant was required to serve in his parent Department for a minimum period of two years; thereafter he could again be sent on deputation; although, the Government had authority to extend the period of one year but before proceeding on deputation for second time it was mandatory that a civil servant shall serve in his parent department for a minimum period of two years

Period of deputation could not be extended without sending the civil servant back to his parent department

If the officer was on deputation to another department and he created hardships in smooth functioning of that Department, then it was the prerogative of the department to send the officer back to his parent Department before completion of the period as laid down in clause (iv) of the Deputation Policy dated 19-12-1979

Department was justified in sending the petitioner back to his parent department

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Supreme Court (AJ&K) observed that under S.9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, a civil servant was obliged to serve under the Government anywhere outside or within Azad Jammu and Kashmir but a civil servant could not be posted without any post

Department was directed to adjust the petitioner against the post he was entitled to.

Responsibility of deciding suitability of an appointment, posting or transfer fell primarily on the executive branch of the State.

Appellant who had most of his service period spent at district "L", and had never served outside in other district of the Province, was desirous to serve in district "L"

Validity

Held, it would not be justified to again allow the appellant to remain posted at district 'L"

Appeal, having no merit was dismissed, with direction that appellant be posted in other district of the Province, in accordance with his grade and scale.

Appellant was posted at place "Q" but almost within a period of five months, he was transferred and some other person was posted at his place

Validity

Posting and transfer, no doubt, could not be challenged, unless it was against the law and rules or mala fide, however transfer order, if found mala fide, or made for the extraneous considerations to accommodate some blue-eyed chip, then the matter would fall within jurisdictional domain of the Service Tribunal

Appellant in the present case was transferred within a period of five months; if there was any complaint against the appellant, authorities were competent under the Balochistan (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2012, to proceed against appellant, but mere immature transfer, would not serve the purpose

Impugned notification, was set aside, in circumstances.

Appellant who remained posted as School Teacher in school at place 'B.K.' for a period of 11 years, was transferred from that school

Said transfer having been cancelled, respondent filed appeal before Service Tribunal against the cancellation of transfer order

Service Tribunal accepted appeal filed by the respondent and set aside cancellation of transfer order

Validity

Medical certificates attached with the record did not suggest that the appellant was posted in school at place 'B.K.' against a post of disabled teacher or she was permanently disabled from travelling

Transfer order of the appellant after a period of 11 years was justified

Civil servant had no absolute right to remain at a particular station for an indefinite period

No justification existed for cancellation of transfer order by the Service Tribunal

Appeal filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court having no merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Normal tenure of stay of a civil servant at one Station should not be less than three years, but in the exigencies of the service, the transfer could be made before that time, if the terms and conditions of service of civil servant were not affected.

Petitioner under Art.212 of the Constitution, could approach Service Tribunal and jurisdiction of High Court was barred.

Disputes relating to the terms and conditions of the civil servants were given exclusively within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Writ petition was dismissed.

Respondent feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was accepted and transfer order was set aside on the ground that it was against the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business, 1985, and petitioner had filed petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against order of the Service Tribunal

Department concerned was divided into two Divisions/Zones, one for 'north' division and the other for 'south' division; each division had its own official who could exercise jurisdiction within his respective territorial jurisdiction and could pass transfer orders

If any employee was to be transferred from one zone to the other zone, such order was to be passed by the Government as same was not in the control of said official

Place 'B' where the petitioner was serving and was transferred to place 'M' was within territorial jurisdiction of official of 'north' and place 'M' was within the jurisdiction of 'south'

Transfer order, in the present case was passed by official of south Zone whereby respondent was transferred to the area which was in the jurisdiction of official of north zone

Such order being violative of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Rules of Business, 1985, Service Tribunal, in circumstances, had correctly resolved the proposition

No substantial question of public importance being involved in the case, petition for leave to appeal, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, in circumstances.

Petitioner had assailed his transfer order, alleging that same was based on mala fide intention and was discriminatory in nature

Petitioner claimed vested right to serve at the present post

Validity

Transfer of civil servant related to the terms and conditions of service subject to law and rules, and it was the prerogative of the competent authority to transfer a civil servant from one place to another

Petitioner having no legal right to be posted against a particular post, no right would be infringed

Civil servant could be asked to serve anywhere by the competent authority

No hard and fast rule was available that only seniors should be transferred first

In the present case, impugned order of transfer was found to be a routine transfer order and not only the petitioner, but 24 others had also been transferred through the said order

Nothing exceptional was found in the order

Constitutional petition, was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution.

Appellant who was appointed as SST (B-16) and was posted at place 'M', was transferred and posted as A.D.E.O. at place 'C'

Appellant impugned said transfer alleging that it was an outcome of political pressure which smacked mala fide

Directives and recommendation letters issued by the Chief Minister, a Senator and Provincial Minister respectively would show that the impugned order was the out come of political pressure

Question of transfer/posting under S.10 of Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, fell within the domain of competent authority, but such discretion must not be exercised in an arbitrary and fanciful manner

Discretion had to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fair play

Government was required/duty bound to exercise the discretion keeping in view the nature of duties and requisite capability in a fair and impartial manner and there should be no extraneous consideration

If the transfer order was mala fide or in violation of settled law for extraneous considerations to accommodate some blue eyed person, would squarely fall within the domain of Service Tribunal

Impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.

Under S.9 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, every civil servant would be liable to serve anywhere within or outside Azad Jammu and Kashmir in any post under the Government

Normal tenure of stay of a civil servant at one station though should not be less than three years, but, in the exigency of the service, a transfer could be made

Postings and transfers, exclusively fell under the discretion and domain of competent Authority which must not be exercised in an arbitrary or fanciful manner, but should be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fairplay

Order accordingly.

Appeal of civil servant was accepted holding that. impugned order was premature and passed on the basis of complaint which required a regular enquiry in the matter

Transfer of civil servant could not be made on the basis of complaint because transfer had not been mentioned as punishment in the penalty list in the Rules and Regulations regarding the conduct of civil servant

Appellant being a BPS-17 employee, competent Authority for transfer was Chief Secretary/Secretary of the department; that DCO was not competent to deal with the matter directly and to order enquiry

Impugned order was set aside with direction that appellant would remain posted at place 'A'.

Dispute was with regard to transfer of land situated in Border area by military allottee and requirement of "No Objection Certificate" from General Head Quarter (GHQ)

All transfers in question were transfers to vendees from legal heirs of military allottees concluded in year, 1997 or before

Border Area Committee vide its order dated 23-12-2009, cancelled all transfers recorded from allottees for lack of "No Objection Certificate" from GHQ, which included cancellation of mutation of inheritance attested in year, 1987, recorded in favour of heirs of military allottee

Validity

Order passed by Border Area Committee was wrong because mutation of inheritance recorded transfer made by operation of law, which should be subject to limited scrutiny and not "No Objection Certificate"

As to subsequent transactions, consistency with GHQ practice would require that those concluded prior to year, 1997 should be granted ex post facto "No Objection Certificates"

For grave uncertainty on account of foregoing matters that resulted to members of public who had proprietary interest in land transferred by military allottees or their successors mandated that the same be cleared of all confusion and doubt about the law

State of ambiguity in Border Area Committee, GHQ and Revenue authorities policy and action led to arbitrariness in determination of rights affected by such law

Arbitrariness was a serious form of discrimination under Art.25 of the Constitution

High Court directed the Border Area Committee to intimate concerned competent authorities to frame rules and regulations that would formalize criteria for granting "No Objection Certificate" to transferees of military allottees and notify available or new procedure for obtaining the same, so that elements of discrimination that were likely to pervade decision by Border Area Committee in matters regarding proprietary interests of transferees of military allottees

High Court further directed the authorities that steps must be taken for record in respect of rights of persons interested in land allotted under West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, MLR-9 of 1959, should be maintained and available for public inspection either in the offices of Border Area Committee or at Tehsil offices, where the record duly authenticated by Border Area Committee should be available for inspection by public

Case was remanded by High Court to Border Area Committee for decision afresh

Petition was allowed accordingly. Subedar Sardar Khan through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Idrees through General Attorney and another PLD 2008 SC 591 rel.

Competent Authority, in view of the "Rationalization Policy of P.S.T's. (Phase-II) of the Government" and consequent upon the recommendation of the District Rationalization Committee, approved the transfer of the petitioner along with 241 other teachers with shifting of their posts in the schools

Posting and transfer, was a necessary feature of service and could best be judged by the authority under whom the person was serving

Posting and transfer was outside the scope of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court as enshrined in Art.212 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Constitutional petition in relation to the matter connected with the terms and conditions of service, in respect whereof the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction was not maintainable in view of provisions of Art.212 of the Constitution.

Transfer of a civil servant was a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service and bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution, would be fully attracted

Constitutional petition against transfer was not maintainable.

Transfer related to the terms and conditions of service and civil servant could claim to be posted at a particular place; he could be transferred at any place and under Art.199 of the Constitution, High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to transfer

High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere into the matter of transfer in view of the bar contained under Art.212 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner who was performing his duties as Junior Clerk at place 'G' having been transferred to place 'K' had challenged his transfer

Validity

Petitioner had no legal right to be posted against a particular post and question of infringement of fundamental right would not arise

Posting/transfer related to terms and conditions of government servant and it was the Service Tribunal who had exclusive jurisdiction to dilate upon and decide such matters while constitutional jurisdiction, could not be invoked to get such controversies resolved

Plea of mala fide also did not confer jurisdiction upon High Court to entertain the constitutional petition to resolve the controversy of posting and transfer, as there was an express bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution, which had provided that Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to interfere in such like matters.

Transfer of civil servant was a matter of terms and conditions of employment, which could only be challenged before the Service Tribunal

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution being barred, constitutional petition was not maintainable, which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner who was transferred from one place of service to another, having been re-transferred to his original place of service only after two months and 24 days, filed appeal before Service Tribunal, which was dismissed

Petitioner had contended that re-transferring order remained original order in terms of S.21(2) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and as no appeal had been provided against said original order, Service Tribunal was not justified to dismiss his appeal on that ground alone

Validity

Held, it was condition precedent that civil servant had to file departmental appeal/representation before the Departmental Authority; and thereafter availing 90 days, appeal was to be filed before the Service Tribunal within one month

Impugned order, in circumstances was in consonance with the mandatory provisions of law

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners being aggrieved of order, whereby they were transferred from one place of working to another contended that impugned orders had been made in violation of Rules and Regulations, as well as in violation of decision of the Provincial Cabinet

Section 10 of Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 provided that every civil servant was liable to serve anywhere within or outside the Province concerned, with exception that civil servant was recruited specifically to serve in a particular area or region

Petitioners being civil servants, during subsistence of their service, were liable to serve anywhere within or outside the Province

Petitioners were unable to establish that their case was covered by term `frequent transfer and posting', they had also failed to show any mala fide on the part of concerned authorities while making orders in their case

Petitioners having failed to make out any case in their favour, their petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Grievance of the petitioners' was that being Science teachers, they could not be transferred as there was no vacancy for Science teachers where they could be adjusted

Assistant Advocate-General in his report had submitted that a Science teacher, duly qualified could easily teach Arts subjects as against an Arts teacher who was not qualified to teach Science subjects

Order of District Education Officer had revealed that only one vacancy of Science teacher was available, while six vacancies were for Arts teachers existed

Assistant Advocate-General under instructions undertook that as soon as vacancies for Science teachers would become available, petitioners would be accommodated

Petitioners and their counsel had expressed no opposition and they appeared to be satisfied

Petition was disposed of in terms of statement made by A.A.-G.

Petitioner had challenged his transfer order by filing a representation before the authorities which had been decided after giving him an opportunity of being heard

Petitioner having already availed the remedy against the impugned transfer order and a fresh order had been passed, constitutional petition had become infructuous

Even otherwise, constitutional petition was not maintainable for the reason that there were no statutory rules for governing the terms and conditions of service of employees

In absence of statutory rules, any order passed by the authority could not be termed as a violation, amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Petitioner who was posted in school at place 'D', by way of mutual transfer, was transferred and posted in school at place `S'

Petitioner joined her new place of posting, but just after thirteen days her transfer order was cancelled and she was transferred to another place vide impugned order

Petitioner had alleged that mutual transfer order had been cancelled without giving any cogent reason and that impugned order had not been passed on administrative grounds, but on the political pressure of local M.P.A.

Through the impugned order, not only the basic/fundamental rights of the petitioners had been usurped but same was also against the spirit of Wedlock Policy introduced by the Government

Validity

Impugned order having malafidely and illegally been passed in contravention of basic law and the Policy declared by the Government, constitutional petition filed against said order was maintainable before the High Court

If one spouse in one Government Department was posted at one city and the other spouse was posted at a different city, was definitely going to cause mental distress to both of then, with the consequences which were not only injurious to them, but to the public and Government exchequer as well

Contention of counsel for the petitioner that Impugned order had been passed due to political pressure of the local M.P.A., was fortified as same had been issued in sheer violation of the Wedlock Policy and that too without giving any cogent reasons

Impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.

Posting and transfer was necessary feature of service and could be best judged by the authority under whom a person was serving

Posting and transfer being necessary condition of service, was outside the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court as enshrined in Art.212 of the Constitution.

Earlier, employee was transferred and he worked for about 5 months at the place where he was transferred, but when he was prematurely transferred from said place of his transfer, he filed departmental appeal which appeal was accepted and his said transfer order was cancelled

Employee again was transferred just after seven months

Departmental appeal against said transfer having been rejected without any reason, employee had filed service appeal before Appellate Tribunal

Employee was transferred from one office to another repeatedly, within a short span of seven months while other employee had been posted against the post of the employee

Employee had not completed his normal tenure which was against the transfer policy of the Government

Impugned transfer order was also against the spirit of notification dated 3-8-2009, wherein competency had been entrusted to Agency Officer for employees of BPS-1 to 10, and to Political Agent for employees from BPS-11 to 15

Impugned order being without lawful authority was set aside and the employee would continue against the post till completion of his normal tenure according to the policy of the Government.

Petitioners being employees of Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution and office-bearers of EOBI Officer's Association aggrieved by their transfer to other places alleging same to be mala fide

Institution did not have statutory rules of service

Relief prayed for was in respect of rights of individual employees and not in respect of any of rights of such Association

Only appropriate forum could determine whether authorities had taken impugned action in accordance with law or not

High Court dismissed constitutional petition in limine for being not maintainable, in circumstances.

Petitioner was transferred and assumed charge of the post where he was transferred, but within three months he was again transferred

Petitioner had impugned order of his transfer and contended that two illegalities were committed by the authorities while transferring him; firstly, he was not allowed to remain on the post at least for two years, while a junior officer of low grade was posted on the post, secondly action was taken in violation of policy laid down by the Government

Maintainability of constitutional petition was disputed by the authorities on the ground that dispute in respect of posting and transfer of a civil servant fell within the terms and conditions of service, which could not be challenged by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court; further that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution

Petitioner being a civil servant was liable to serve within the Province or outside, while competent authority had the power to make transfer and posting of its employees as per provisions of S.10 of Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, to that extent no illegality was committed in the impugned notification

Act of transfer however was in violation of policy laid down by the Government

Transfer and posting of the petitioner were made only on wish of some Minister, which was neither legal nor proper

Though concerned authorities-had the power to make transfer and posting of their employees, but that power must be exercised with due care and caution and without male fide intention

Posting of an officer of lower grade on the post of higher grade in the presence of officer of similar grade was bad in eyes of law

As the posting and transfer of a civil servant was not included in the terms and conditions of his service, it would not come within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servant

There being violation of law in respect of transfer, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter

In absence of any other adequate remedy available in the matter, the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could be invoked by an aggrieved person and High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain constitutional petition

Impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.

On account of bar contained under Art.212 of the Constitution, constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed.

Petitioner who was transferred and posted in place of respondent, joined the duty, but thereafter within a period of four months respondent was posted back vide impugned order which order had been challenged by the petitioner through constitutional petition

Petitioner had not been able to show or establish that the same had been made on account of any political influence moreover; said transfer fell within the terms and conditions of service which was barred by under Art.212 of the Constitution

High Court, in circumstances, had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter for which the petitioner had adequate remedy under S.4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution against the order transferring a government servant from one place to another, was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Art.212 of Constitution; as the posting and transfer of a government servant related to terms and conditions of his service

In such-like matters, the Service Tribunal had the exclusive jurisdiction

Petitioner had failed to point out any political victimization done to him for his transfer and simple narration of a paragraph in the petition would not establish any political victimization

High Court declined to interfere in the transfer order of the petitioner.

Petitioner on transfer contacted concerned department to issue relieving certificate so that he could join his next place of posting

In the meantime an inquiry was initiated against petitioner for alleged unauthorized absence from duty

Petitioner had contended that unless such certificate was issued, it would not be possible for Aim to receive his salary

Despite the petitioner had joined new place of working last pay certificate and relieving report was not issued to the petitioner, in consequence the petitioner was not being given his salary

Validity

No lawful reason was available to withhold last pay certificate and relieving report

Inquiry pending against the petitioner was stated to be in limbo, which could not furnish sufficient cause for the department to withhold the salary of the petitioner

Allowing petition, High Court directed the department to issue last pay certificate and relieving report to the petitioner within specified period.

Plea of the petitioners was that they had no alternate remedy because once they had filed representation before competent Authority under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, they had to wait for 90 days before they could file an appeal; that they were left `remediless' for 90 days and it was that period that constitutional petition could be maintained

Validity

Article 199 of the Constitution was "subject to the Constitution", while Art.212 being a non-obstante Article would prevail over Art.199

Article 212 had clearly stated that "no court would grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of such Administrative Court or Tribunal extended"-High Court, in circumstances had no jurisdiction to entertain a matter that stood barred under Art.212 of the Constitution

Contentions of the counsel for the petitioners that he had been left remediless after filing his representation under S.4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, was without force

Filing of the representation before a Departmental Authority, was itself initiation of the remedy under S.4(1)(a) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974

Pendency of the representation for a maximum period of 90 days was a part of procedure/remedies prescribed for a civil servant, which then culminated into right to file an appeal

Pendency of representation before the Departmental Authority, could not be taken to mean that the petitioners had been left remediless; petitioners, in fact had invoked the remedy and the remedial process had been set in motion

Even if a writ was issued during that period of 90 days, it would make a mockery of the statutory process provided under S.4(1)(a) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, rendering the final right to appeal in 90 days totally meaningless

Constitutional jurisdiction could not be put to use to frustrate statutory remedial process

Once High Court had no jurisdiction under S.212 of the Constitution same could not be conferred on it just because after filing the representation under S.4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 the petitioners had been rendered "remediless ", it was not the question of alternate remedy, but of bar of jurisdiction

High Court had no jurisdiction to even entertain proceedings that fell within the domain of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 as per Art.212 of the Constitution.

Petitioner had been transferred by authorities which was exercising control over the employer companies created in different areas

No documentary proof had been brought on record to show that the authorities were not competent to issue transfer order

Petitioner had been relieved from his present posting to join his new assignment

One could not claim the posting of his choice while remaining in (Government) service

Administration of the department/company had the prerogative as to where an employee was to be posted to get maximum benefits of his capability

No prima facie case had been made out by the petitioner for grant of interim relief

If the temporary injunction was issued, it would amount to interference in the affairs of the authorities which according to law was not permissible

No case for grant of interim relief having been made out, application for the same was dismissed

Main constitutional petition was also dismissed being not maintainable and same had become infructuous after handing over the charge by the petitioner.

Petitioner who initially was appointed as Sub-Engineer BPS-11 finally was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer BPS-17

Petitioner thereafter was transferred and posted on current/acting charge as Town Municipal Officer, but after about 2-1/2 years of such appointment, he was transferred from that post of Town Municipal Officer and was ordered to report to Sindh Local Government Board for further posting

Petitioner had challenged such transfer

Petitioner was a Grade-17 Officer and that of holding the post of Town Municipal Officer was a Grade-18 post on acting charge basis

Even otherwise petitioner belonged to Engineering Branch service under Sindh Councils Unified Grade Service Rules, 1982, whereas post of Town Municipal Officer belonged to Administrative Branch under said Rules

Rule 3 of Sindh Councils Unified Grade Service Rules, 1982, had clearly shown that petitioner who belonged to Engineering Branch was not eligible for transfer to a post which belonged to another Branch namely the Administrative Branch

Petitioner who belonged to Engineering Branch, his posting as Town Municipal Officer was contrary to sub-rule (4) of R.3 of Sindh Councils Unified Grade Service Rules, 1982

Respondent being a Grade-18 officer and belonging to Administrative Branch, was qualified for holding the post of Town Municipal Officer and posting of a qualified officer could not be sacrificed at the altar of petitioner who was serving such post merely on current/acting charge basis and who did not fulfil the qualification for holding such post

Petitioner who was validly transferred from post of Town Municipal Officer, could not say that his transfer was premature or was made for political reasons.

Petitioner who initially was appointed as Sub-Engineer BPS-11 finally was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer BPS-17

Petitioner, thereafter was transferred and posted on current/acting charge as Town Municipal Officer, but after about 2-1/2 years was transferred from that post and ordered to report to Sindh Local Government Board for further posting

Petitioner had challenged said transfer

Maintainability of constitutional petition had been questioned by respondents on the ground that petitioner being a civil servant, his remedy lay before Sindh Service Tribunal, because question agitated in the petition being that of transfer and posting, same was a matter of terms and conditions of the petitioner

Validity

Petitioner from the date of his initial appointment was working in Sindh Councils Unified Grade Service and his service was regulated by the Sindh Councils Unified Grade Service Rules, 1982

Service of petitioner, in circumstances was a different service from that of service defined under S.2(b) of Sindh Civil Servant Act, 1973

Petitioner in circumstances was not a civil servant, but was an employee of Sindh Councils Unified Grade Service to whom Sindh Councils Unified Grade Service Rules, 1982 were applicable and he would continue to remain amenable to the jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution

Rule of master and servant was inapplicable to cases where there was violation of statutory provisions or of any other law and constitutional petition challenging the same would be maintainable before High Court.

Petitioner, who was employee in Workers' Welfare Board, constituted under S.3 of Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 was transferred through impugned notification

Contention of the petitioner was that Welfare Board was an autonomous body and appointment therein was regulated by its governing body

Petitioner had placed on record the decision of the Governing Body whereby it was advised that no recruitment, appointment, posting/transfer in any cadre/grade be made without prior approval of the Workers' Welfare Fund Secretary

Secretary of the Department had conceded that the instructions were circulated by Workers' Welfare Board to all authorities to refrain from creating any new post or recruitment and appointment, even against already created vacant posts

It seemed that such instructions were not given any heed

Workers' Welfare Fund was a Federal subject and its appointment was regulated and managed by its Governing Board and the Provincial Authorities had no say in the matter of appointment and/or transfer of its employees

Such being the legal position, impugned notification was struck down and petition was allowed.

Appellant felt aggrieved of said notification of transfer for the reason that he was the senior most in the list of Sub-Engineers and the charge of the post of Sub-Divisional Officer could not be snatched away from him by reason of simple transfer

Appellant also contended that in the presence of a senior employee, the charge of senior post could not be given to a junior person

Power of assigning the additional charge of a senior post was not provided by the service laws

Recognized modes of promotion under, the provisions of service laws were current charge, officiating basis and regular promotion

Assigning the additional charge of a senior post could be considered as nothing more than a stop-gap arrangement and it could not be claimed as' a right

It could not be overlooked that appellant was a Sub-Engineer who was performing his functions as such at "N" and through the impugned notification he had been transferred to the post of Sub-Engineer at "M"

Nothing wrong appeared to have been committed in such a situation

Possessing additional charge of a senior post was not a vested right of a senior employee

Appeal did not merit any further consideration

If the plea of seniority was considered, appellant did not fall within the definition of an "aggrieved person" because one senior to him had not approached the court nor had he been arrayed as party in the line of respondents

Appellant, in circumstances, not falling within the definition of "aggrieved person", his appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner had assailed the validity of order whereby he was transferred from the post of T.M.O. from place `F' and was directed to report to S&GAD and the order whereby respondent had been posted as T.M.O. at place `F'

Petitioner was an employee of the N.T.C. and his appointment as T.M.O. at place was not free from doubt

Record revealed that serious dispute arose as to approval of the budget of T.M.A. at place complaints in that behalf had come on the surface and the Chief Minister directed a probe into the matter and deputed D.G. (Inspection) to submit a report regarding meeting in which the budget was allegedly approved

In pursuance of the said report it was suggested that Secretary LG&RD should take disciplinary action against the petitioner

High Court declined to interfere in the matter in its equitable jurisdiction

Even otherwise action of the authorities did not appear to be arbitrary and mala fide and appeared to be in consonance with the dictates of good governance

No civil servant or functionary of the State could claim any vested right for being posted at any particular post of his own choice and was bound to abide by the terms and conditions of his service including transfer and posting

No case for interference and invalidation of the impugned orders having been made out, petition being devoid of any merit was dismissed accordingly.

Right of civil servant to approach High Court directly instead of departmental authority and Service Tribunal and order to be passed by High Court in such matter

Circumstances and scope stated.

Petitioner, who was appointed as Medical Officer on ad hoc basis, under notification was allowed to work as .Deputy Provincial Coordinator on deputation basis for three years

Petitioner having been repatriated/transferred from said post, he challenged his said transfer order

Validity

Under S.10 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 posting and transfer being the terms and conditions of service, same could not be challenged before High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Right from the promulgation of the Service Laws in the year 1973, consistent view of the Courts was that in case of an adverse order having been passed in respect of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, remedy of appeal under S.4 of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was efficacious and could be treated as an alternate, notwithstanding the fact that order impugned suffered from gross violation of law or not

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner who claimed to be a Social Worker had sought cancellation of transfers and postings of about 200 school teachers made by authorities, on the ground that said transfers were not in public interest and same were made during ban on transfers

Counsel for the petitioner could not show as to in what way any personal or proprietary right of the petitioner was affected by the transfers and postings of the said teachers

Petitioner had not claimed that his children were studying in any of the schools from which the teachers were transferred

Even otherwise petitioner could not claim any vested right in any particular teacher to teach his children

Transfer of a civil servant was purely an administrative action; it would be very difficult for the court to determine whether transfer of a particular civil servant was or was not in public interest

Courts had always shown restraint in entertaining such matters

Transfer of a civil servant was essentially a condition of his service and by virtue of Art.212 of the Constitution, it would come within the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunals; and jurisdiction of all other courts, including a High Court was expressly barred under its sub-Article (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution

Even the teachers themselves, what to talk of the petitioner, could not challenge their transfers before the High Court

What could not be done directly, could not be done indirectly also

Petitioner, who seemed to be a public spirited keen watch-dog interested in good governance, proper course for him would be to approach the concerned functionaries of the government in its hierarchy

Matters which were purely administrative in nature and pertained to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, were not justiciable before the High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Appellant who was transferred from place of working `C' to place of working `Q' had challenged the transfer on certain grounds including that transfer order was passed by an incompetent Authority and that he could not be transferred from the circle (in which he was appointed) to any other circle

Appellant had accepted his appointment on the basis of "appointment order"

Terms and conditions. incorporated in "appointment order" overruled all other circulars/instructions relating to terms and conditions of his appointment

One of the Conditions of "appointment order" clearly said that appellant would be required to serve the Authority anywhere within Pakistan

Appellant, in view of said condition, could be transferred anywhere in Pakistan and he could not claim that he could not be transferred from place `C' to place `Q'

Contention of appellant that Executive Engineer who was his Appointing Authority only was competent to transfer him, was repelled in view of fact that Executive Engineer was only a delegatee of Authority in which appellant had been employed

Any other Authority which was higher in rank than Executive Engineer was competent to transfer the appellant

Appellant had been transferred competently by the Authority, which was higher than the Executive Engineer

Appellant was not an employee for one circle only, but he was employee for entire Pakistan and could be posted or transferred anywhere in Pakistan

Contention of appellant that he could not be transferred from the circle in which he was appointed, to any other circle, was repelled, in circumstances.

Property in question was declared Evacuee Trust Property with the concession that if any portion of said property had been transferred by Settlement Organization in favour of any entitled person before target date i.e. 30-6-1968 then said transfer would not be disturbed and such transfer would continue to stand

Petitioners, who claimed that Provisional Transfer Order was issued in their favour before said target date, had not paid price of said property even after expiry of said target date and no Permanent Transfer Deed was issued in their favour by Settlement Organization

Petitioners were rightly held not entitled to transfer to their property in question and were rightly not declared to be transferees of property in question.

Transfer of any civil servant could be made by the competent Authority in the exigency of service of public interest, while no civil servant had a legal right to remain posted at a particular place

Matter could be agitated by invoking the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal in case of mala fide and extraneous considerations to accommodate the favourites

Service Tribunal could set aside orders passed by Departmental Authority out of malice, even though the relief claimed by a civil servant was not obtainable as of right

Petitioner filed departmental appeal against transfer order which had not been decided

Petitioner, after filing of appeal, did not wait for its outcome within the statutory period and brought present constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was beyond the purview of jurisdiction vested in the High Court through Art.199 of the Constitution as same was to be exercised subject to the other provisions of the Constitution

Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed.

Interim, order given in the absence of the other party would remain in operation unless it was recalled or the petition was disposed of after hearing the parties or disposed of after providing them sufficient chance of being heard

Contention that transfer being part of terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter which was accepted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment, such act covered by the principle of estoppel and he could not agitate the matter, was repelled

Terms and conditions of employment within the meaning of Labour Laws, were subject to change as a result of collective bargaining and even otherwise, application of the principle of estoppel could not be applied to the grievance of the employee regarding frequent transfer or transfer on account of mala fides and unfair deal with the employee.