Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that instant writ petition may kindly be accepted and the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 may kindly be set aside, declared illegal being passed on purely political considerations rather than administrative exigencies or in public interest.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that while working as Deputy District Education Officer at Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Headmaster at Govt. High School Bhaghat Pur vide order dated 23.4.2009 passed by the District Coordination Officer, Sialkot (Respondent No, 2). Once again the petitioner was transferred from his post by Secretary (Schools), Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore - (Respondent No, 1) vide order dated 5.5.2009 and his services were placed at the disposal of Respondent No, 2 for further posting and Respondent No, 4 was posted at the place of posting of the petitioner. After a period of only six days, Respondent No, 1 cancelled his own order dated 5.5.2009 vide order dated 11.5.2009. Respondent No, 1 again reviewed its own order dated 11.5.2009 vide order dated 2.6.2009 and cancelled the same while restoring the earlier order dated 5.5.2009. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been transferred four times within a span of two months by Respondent No, 1, which is against the. Guidelines for Transfer/Posting in School Education Department, provided in the letter dated 10.8.2009 issued by the Additional Secretary (Schools), Government of the Punjab, School Education Department, in which it was mentioned that no transfer shall be made before completion of tenure of three years; that the petitioner has been transferred due to political pressure exerted by Respondent No, 5; that the said transfer has been made against Rule 21 sub-rule (2) of the Rules of Business (Provincial Government) 1974 and that the instant transfer of the petitioner has not been made in consideration of the exigencies of service or in the public interest rather it has been made on the directions of MPA, as is apparent from letter dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-E). In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Munshi Tahir Zahoor Vs. Additional, Secretary to Chief Minister Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (2006 PLC (C.S.) 101), Mst. Zahida Perveen Vs. Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 8 others (2009 PLC (C.S.) 94), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another Vs. Sheikh Abdul Aziz (1998 SCMR 91), Secretary, Revenue Division and others Vs. Muhammad Saleem (2008 SCMR 948), Muhammad Saleh Asim Vs. Secretary Schools Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (2009 PLC (C.S.) 44), Ibrar Hussain Vs. Collector, Customs and others (1997 PLC (C.S.) 885), Muhammad Airf Vs. Government of Punjab and others (2007 PLC (C.S.) 428).
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by learned counsel for Respondent No, 4, while supporting the comments submitted by Respondents Nos, 1 & 3, at the very outset has taken a preliminary objection that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and it is a purely service matter and the same comes within the purview of Punjab Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Asadullah Rashid Vs. Haji Muhammad Muneer and others (1998 SCMR 2129) and Ayyaz Anjum Vs. Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department through Secretary and others (1997 SCMR 169). Second preliminary objection raised by them is that a civil servant can be transferred and posted anywhere in the Punjab at any time where his services are required and as such, frequent transfer does not give rise to any grievance to him. Learned counsel for Respondent No, 4 says that in February, 2007, the petitioner was posted in Daska and he has enjoyed a stay of more than two years. He has further alleged that there are serious allegations of Corruption against the petitioner, in view of which he had been transferred and the same has come on Print Media in the shape of Press Clippings of Daily Khabrain dated 9.9.2008 and 13.9.2009. Moreover, the assertion of the petitioner that his transfer has been made on political influence is also not true as in fact real brother of the petitioner, namely, Rana Afzal, is an MPA, as such, the political influence is being used by him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate-General as well as learned counsel for Respondent No, 4 and have also perused the comments as well as other material available on record.
6. The petitioner has appended with this petition letter dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-E), which was written by Dr. Ahmad Afhan Deputy Secretary, Chief Minister's Secretariat Punjab to Secretary (Schools), Govt. of the Punjab, Education Department and in which it was intimated that "Mr. Muhammad Rizwan, MPA, PP-128, Sialkot met Khawaja Ahmad Hassan, Chairman Chief Minister's Task Force on LRRP/SWM and request the posting of Mr. Muhammad Awais (Respondent No, 4) as Deputy D.O. Education Daska" and order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-B), which had been issued in pursuance of directive dated 5.5.2009 from the Chief Minister's Secretariat, whereby the petitioner was transferred from his post and placed at the disposal of Respondent No, 2 for further posting and Respondent No, 4 was posted as Deputy District Education Officer (M-EE) Daska, District Sialkot.
It appears that Respondent No, 4 was accommodated. The said transfer order dated 5.5.2009 had been passed within a period of only one month. After a period of only six days, Respondent No, 1 cancelled his own order dated 5.5.2009 vide order dated 11.5.2009. Again vide order dated 2.6.2009, Respondent No, 1 cancelled the same while restoring the earlier order dated 5.5.2009, thereby again transferring the petitioner and placing his services at the disposal of Respondent No,
2. It is further observed that the said orders have been passed during the imposition of ban. It is quite obvious from the above that the instant orders with regard to the transfer of the petitioner had been passed on political pressures exerted by Respondent No, 5 through Respondent No, 3, as such, the impugned transfer order had not been passed in consideration of any administrative exigencies or in public interest.
7. In view of the above perspective, it is quite apparent that the transfer of the petitioner is being made on the directives issued by the Chief Minister's Secretariat at the behest of the local MPA in order to accommodate Respondent No, 4, therefore, the impugned transfer order being made on political considerations, had been made in violation of the law as well as the transfer policies of the Government. Preliminary objections raised by the learned Additional Advocate-General as well as learned counsel for Respondent No, 4 are that under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, this matter comes within the purview of terms and conditions of service, as such, the Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction in such like matters. 'I am afraid in such like matters where mala fides on the part of the respondents are quite apparent and the impugned orders have been passed on the political considerations and not on the administrative exigencies or in the public interest, this Court has exercised extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction to rectify the same and accordingly I feel no hesitation in exercising; extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction in the instant case by accepting this writ petition relying upon Mst. Zahida Penmen Vs. Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 8 others (2009 PLC (C.S.) 94), Muhammad Arif Vs. Government of Punjab and others (2007 PLC (C.S.) 428) and Munshi Tahir Zahoor Vs. Additional, Secretary to Chief Minister Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (2006 PLC (C.S.) 101). Resultantly, the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 is set aside.