' By stating the following facts, the writ petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court to save him from being transferred/relieved from the place of present posting. Petitioner, Muhammad Naeem, an Audit Officer of the Finance Department of the Government of the Punjab, was transferred on deputation and had joined with respondent-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur w.e.f. 26-9-2002. His term of reference is contained in Notification No. SO (B&E-1) 5- 26/92 dated Lahore the 24th November, 2002, issued by the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department. As per learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the relations became strained with Chairperson of the Board of the petitioner. So, the Board issued an order No.2090/PAC dated 23-4- 2004, by which the present writ petitioner was relieved of from his present assignment of the duty with immediate effect and was directed to report to his parent Department. This order has been impugned/challenged by the writ petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to Condition No.17 of the above noted notification dated 24th November, 2002 to contend that the Government was empowered to terminate/curtail the three years period of deputation .And Chairperson' had got no authority/power to relieve the petitioner before that date and period. So, according to him the order dated 23-4-2004 is illegal and unlawful and it should be declared as such. He has referred to a long list of cases decided allegedly in his favour, which are as follows:--
(i) Ghulam Muhammad Malik v. Chief Secretary and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 888;
(ii) Dr. Muhammad Munir v. Province of Punjab and others ICA No.669 of 1999 (Lah.);
(iii) Syed Aftab Haider v. Government of Sindh 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1342
(iv) Abdul Saeed v. Secretary Education and others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1468
(v) Alamgir Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. And others for 1998 PLC (C.S.) 504;
(vi) Nisar Abbas, General Manager v. Abdul Rashid Khan PLJ 1999 Lah. 145;
(vii) Dr. Ahmad Suleman Waris v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others PLD 1997 SC 382; (viii)Zahid Akhtar v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530;
(ix) Rana Habib-ur-Rehman Khan v. Government of the Punjab 2001 PLC (C.S.) 450.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education.
Bahawalpur has strongly/vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by filing the comments and stating through arguments, that this Court has got no jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to entertain the writ petition or.To pass the order in the instant writ petition, because the question relates to the terms and conditions of the service. To support his point of view he has referred to Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 2280, Government of the Punjab and others v. Muhammad Zafar Bhatti and others PLD 2004 SC 317 and Fauzia Siddique Qureshi "v.
Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others 2004 SCMR 521. He has also urged that the petitioner has got another alternate adequate remedy before the Service Tribunal so, he should not be granted any relief in the writ. He relies upon Syed Imran Raza Zaidi v. Government of Punjab through S&GAD and 2 others 1996 SCMR 645 for that proposition. Replying to this question the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that an order, which is a coram non judice can be set aside by this Court.
3. I have considered the lengthy arguments of both the learned counsel and scanned the record of the case minutely.
4. The essential fact cannot be denied that the petitioner is a Government servant and the Service Rules, Regulations, Terms and Conditions are applicable to him. As far as the consensus of the ruling is concerned the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court has clearly expounded that even in cases of coram non judice orders, the High Court cannot interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 because the bar having been brought in the Constitution through Article 212. From the following authorities. I have formed this view:--
(i) Muhammad Yasin Saqib v. Chairman Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and others NLR 2003 Civil 32;
(ii) Mahmood Ahmad v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and 2 others PLJ 1995 Lah. 222;
(iii) Zahid Akhtar v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530.
' So, I do not deem it appropriate to pass any order in this case of the petitioner, as the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have prohibited such a course to be adopted. The petitioner having got another alternate, adequate, efficacious remedy of the Service Tribunal, this writ is not maintainable. So, I dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.