SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, Raja Khalid Mahmood/petitioner calls in question the validity of the transfer/posting order dated; 11-11-2010 passed by DCO Rawalpindi A and all subsequent orders connected therewith or ancillary thereto with the prayer that the petitioner be allowed to perform his duties as Budget and Accounts Officer at Rawalpindi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is serving in Education Department since 13-6-1987.
He was posted as Budget and Accounts Officer in the office of District Education Officer (WEE)
Rawalpindi since 1-9-2006. His wife Mst. Zarqa Nasreen is a PTC teacher and is posted in Government Primary School Abun Chuk Rawalpindi vide order dated 11-11-2010 passed by the District Coordination Officer, Rawalpindi, the services of the petitioner have been surrendered and placed at the disposal of the Secretary Education (Schools) Punjab Lahore. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation to the Secretary Education (Schools) Lahore. However till to date, the same has not been attended to. Hence this writ.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has been transferred as punishment. Under law no punishment can be imposed upon a civil servant without serving him charge sheet, show-cause notice and holding a full fledge inquiry. According to the wedlock policy issued by the Government of the Punjab, spouses are to be allowed to work at the same station to avoid hardship. The petitioner's wife being a PTC teacher is posted in Government Primary School Abun Chuk, Rawalpindi. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner out of Rawalpindi is voilative of the wedlock policy. The District Coordination Officer can exercise his jurisdiction within the District and he has no lawful authority to exercise his powers outside the District. In this case the services of the petitioner have been surrendered and transferred to Lahore which is outside Rawalpindi District. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No,2 is illegal. Moreover the transfer of a civil servant can only be made in exigency of service or in public interest. No such reason has been assigned in the impugned order. Hence the same is nullity in the eyes of law and not sustainable.
' In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2004 PLC (C.S) 622 (Lahore High Court).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents available on the file.
5. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others (2007 SCMR 54) that:--- "Admittedly the petitioner had no legal right to be posted against a particular post. Hence the question of its infringement does not arise as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner.
5.(?) It is well-settled by now that the question of posting of a Government servant squarely falls within the jurisdictional domain of the Competent Authority subject to law and rules made thereunder. The question of posting/transfer relates to the terms and conditions of a Government Servant and Service Tribunal would have exclusive jurisdiction to dilate upon and decide such matter and Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to get such controversies resolved. We have also adverted to the question of mala fides which according to the learned Advocate Supreme Court could have been dilated upon in constitutional jurisdiction which is not correct because the provisions as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan ousts jurisdiction of all other courts and orders of the departmental authority even though without jurisdiction or mala fide can be challenged only before the Service Tribunal and jurisdiction of Civil Court including High Court is specifically ousted. The plea of mala fide does not confer upon High Court jurisdiction to act in the matter in view of the Constitutional ouster as contained in Article 212 of the Constitutional of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and learned Service Tribunal has full jurisdiction to interfere in such-like matters. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in case Kh. Abdul Wahid v. Chairman WAPDA 1986 SCMR 1534. "Secretary to Government of the Punjab Health Department Lahore and others v. Dr. Abida Iqbal and another 2009 SCMR 61, Dr. Ghazanfarulah and 2 others v. Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 6 others 2010 PLC (C.S) 51 (Lahore High Court) and Khan Muhammad v. Secretary Education (Schools)
Government of the Punjab, Education Department and another 2010 PLC (C.S) 238 (Lahore High Court).
6. The only citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. In view of the categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the jurisdictional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings that fall within the domain of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
' For the said reason, this petition is dismissed in limine.