Download Judgment

MUQEEM KHAN Petitioner versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others Respondents

Citation: 2000 PLD 1

Court: Peshawar High Court

Result: Petition Dismissed

Date of Decision: 07.01.1999

Judge(s): Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Mrs. Khalida Rachid, JJ

Case Number(s): Writ Petition No. 1003 with Civil Miscellaneous No. 1198 of 1999

ORDER

 MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.??Muqeem Khan, petitioner through this writ petition under article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has challenged his transfer order dated 2?6?1999 passed by District Education Officer, Upper Dir (respondent No. 4) to be illegal, without lawful authority and jurisdiction, and thus, is liable to be cancelled.

  1. According to the averments of the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on 17?11?1994; that vide Order No.2177?82/Trans/Adj. dated 15?5?1999 he was transferred from G.H.S. Shinkiari to G.H.S. Akhagram, Upper Dir; that after about 17 days of his transfer, he was again transferred from that School to G.M.S. Karkabari vide order dated 2?6?1999. According to the petitioner all this was done at the. desire of the Narcotics Minister and that he approached the concerned Authorities but in vain, hence, having no other efficacious .remedy available to him, he has filed the instant writ petition.
  1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available material placed on the file.
  1. The contention of the learned counsel is that the quick transfer of the petitioner was due to political pressure and are as such mala fide and un­sustainable. It is well?settled that posting and transfer falls within the terms and conditions of a civil servant, therefore, tinder Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in the matter of terms and conditions of the civil servant being barred cannot be invoked and in such matter the service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction. It has been held in number of cases by the apex Court of the country that any matter which is relatable to the terms of conditions of a civil servant, would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in such matters in view of Article. 212(2) of the Constitution. Reference can be made to 1991 SCMR 477, PLD 1995 SC 530 and 1997 SCMR 167, 169, 170 and 1476.

Consequently this writ petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine alongwith C.M. It may be observed that despite clear provisions in law and the case?law on the subject, the tendency to file writ petitions in such matters is deprecated. It appears that the litigants are not properly advised by the counsel which amounts to professional misconduct