Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 1348, 1519, 1523, 1990, 2043 and 2179 of 1987, heard on 17th June, 1987.

‑‑‑S.9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Transfer of civil servant from one station to another‑‑Constitutional petition against transfer orders‑Competency‑‑Civil servants, held, was liable to serve anywhere within the Province as per mandatory provisions of S.9, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974‑‑Such civil servant would have no vested right to claim immunity from transfer from one station to another station‑‑Government's policy statement in matters of transfer whereby ban was imposed on transfer of civil servant before expiry of three years having been issued by authority, such authority has the right to review such policy statement‑‑Civil servant could not urge that Ministers and other Government servants were not competent to pass his transfer orders‑‑No evidence on record available to show that transfer of civil servant was based on mala fide‑‑Mere recommendation of a public representative that a particular civil servant should be transferred would not make the transfer order as void or without lawful authority‑‑Civil servant having no vested right in matters of transfer and transfer orders being valid and lawful, could not be contested in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Petitions by civil servant against his transfer order being misconceived was incompetent in law.

Begum Ismat Azhar v. Punjab Government through Secretary Education and another P L D 1987 Lah. 256 rel.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Other adequate and expeditious remedy available to petitioner‑‑Effect‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, held, would be declined where petitioner had other adequate and expeditious remedy available to him‑‑Petitioner advised by Court to seek his remedy from his departmental functionaries

Kh. Muhammad Sharif, Ch. Muhammad Sharif, (in Writ Petitions Nos. 1519 and 1990 of 1987), Ch. Muhammad Bashir; C.A. Rehman, Muhammad Aslam Khan Buttar and M. Saleem Sehgal for Petitioners.

Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, Advocate‑General Punjab, Lahore for the Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987.

The petitioner, Maqbool Ahmad Patwari (W.P.No.1348 of 1987) has moved this constitutional petition against the respondents praying therein that the impugned order of his transfer from one station to another passed by respondent No.1 on 16‑3‑1987 be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Similarly the petitioners Muhammad Muneef Patwari (W.P.No.1519 of 1987), Sikandar Hayat Patwari (W:P.No.1523 of 1987), Muhammad Kabeer Patwari (W. P.No.1990 of 1987), Abdul Waheed Patwari (W.P.No.2043 of 1987) and Mrs.Rafia Afzal, S.S.T. Teacher (W.P.No.2179 of 1987) have also challenged their transfer orders having been passed against them by the respective respondents in their cases. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these cases, so I propose to dispose of all these cases by my one judgment.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved of the transfer orders passed against them. It is submitted that as per policy decision of the Government of the Punjab, no Government Servant can be transferred from one station to another station unless a period of three years has expired. In the cases of Maqbool Ahmad Patwari and others the main reliance is on the policy statement of the Government of the Punjab whereby a ban was imposed on the transfers of Government servants for a period of three years. In the case of Mrs.Rafia Afzal (W.P.No.2179 of 1987) the petitioner has also impleaded a Member of Provincial Assembly, Halqa P.P.30 (Kotla) District Gujrat as respondent No.3 saying that under the influence of the said respondent, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order of his transfer which is based on mala fides. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has acted under the political influence of the respondent No.3 and as such he has not applied his independent mind to the facts of the instant case.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the transfer orders are based on mala fides inasmuch as there was no legal justification for the transfer of the petitioners from their present stations of posting to other places. It was vehemently argued that the Government of the Punjab has categorically declared its policy regarding the transfer of Government servants saying that no Government servant can be transferred from one station to another unless a period of three years has passed. It is submitted that in all these cases successive transfer orders have been passed by the respondents in clear violation of the policy decision of the Government of the Punjab. On the basis of this, it is stated that these orders are clearly based on mala fides and as such, are without jurisdiction.

4. I summoned the learned Advocate‑General, Punjab to assist the Court. It is submitted by the learned Advocate‑General that under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the transfer of a Government servant is an incident of service or in other words the transfer is a part and parcel of the terms and conditions of service of Government servants. It is next contended that under section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (Act VIII of 1974) 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. On the basis of this provision contained in section 9, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have no vested right to claim immunity from transfer. It is within the lawful domain of the Government to pass transfer orders in respect of each Government servant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and have come to the conclusion that the petitioners being civil servants are liable to serve anywhere within the province of the Punjab in accordance with the mandatory provision contained in section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. They have got no vested right to claim immunity from transfer from one station to another station. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Government of the Punjab has declared its policy in the matter of transfer of Government servants wherein a ban has been imposed on the transfers of the Government servants from one station to another station for a period of three years. The learned counsel stated that the transfer orders in all these cases are in clear violation of the policy decision of the Government. It is also maintained that the policy of the Government has assumed the role of rule and as such the violation of this decision will definitely attract the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

6. I am afraid I cannot agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that the Government of the Punjab at one stage issued the policy statement referred to above but the same Government has reviewed its policy decision. Therefore, for all practical purposes, if the Minister for Irrigation and Power, Government of the Punjab, at one stage of the case imposed a ban on the transfer of a particular Government servant from one station to another station and that ban was meant for a period of three years then at the second stage the same Minister reviewed his own policy decision and passed the transfer orders against the petitioners in some of the cases. Thus, the petitioners cannot successfully urge that the transfer orders are without lawful authority. The authority who had issued the policy statement has also the authority to review the same policy. In view of this, the Minister for Irrigation and Power was competent to review its own earlier policy decision regarding the matters of transfer. It may be observed that the concerned Ministers and the superior Government servants while sitting in their control rooms are the best judges to pass any orders within their lawful domain transferring Government servants from one place to another. The petitioners cannot possibly urge that the Ministers and superior Government servants are not competent to pass the transfer orders. It is next maintained by the learned counsel that the transfer orders in all these cases are based on mala fides. It is submitted that the mere fact that the transfer orders were passed successively by the authorities, will show that these were based on mala fides. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is always easy to urge mala 'fides but at the same time it is very difficult to prove the same. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the transfer orders in each case of the petitioners were based on mala fides. In the case of Mrs.Rafia Afzal (W.P.No.2179 of 1987) learned counsel contended that respondent No.2 has passed the order under the political influence of respondent No.3 who is a Member Of Provincial Assembly. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the concerned Member of the Provincial Assembly is the representative of the people and was competent to bring into the notice of a superior Government servant the grievances of the lower category of Government servants. There was absolutely no harm if he had made certain recommendations in respect of transfer of the petitioner from one station to another. The mere fact that he recommended that the petitioner Mrs.Rafia Afzal should be transferred will not make the order void or without lawful authority. At any rate the transferring authority passed the order in accordance with law. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate before me any jurisdictional defects in the impugned orders having been passed by the competent authority in all these cases. All the transfer orders have been passed by the authorities who were competent and their orders were within their lawful authority. These writ petitions are, therefore, incompetent on the face of them. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Begum Ismat Azhar v. Punjab Government through Secretary Education and another P L D 1987 Lah. 256. I respectfully follow the rule laid down in the: aforesaid authority and declare that all these petitions are misconceived and as such are incompetent in law.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that I do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and I proceed to dismiss all these petitions leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. It cannot be held that the petitioners are left without remedies. They can move the Ministers concerned or the superior Government servants by way of representation if they are at all aggrieved of the transfer orders. I am sure, if the petitioners are in a position to make out any grievance before the Government functionaries, they will definitely attend to them and will redress their grievances if any. It cannot be said that in these cases there are no adequate and speedy remedies available to the petitioners. Admittedly they have got remedies before their concerned departments.

A.A./M‑260/L.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.