' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the order dated 20-6-2012 passed by respondent No,1 (RPO Sargodha) has been asailed whereby the petitioner along with 24 other Head Constables was transferred to P.C. Farooqabad for a period of two years in accordance with IGP/Punjab's Standing Order No,2 of 2001.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was presently performing his duties at P.C. Rawat on deputation but vide order dated 20-6-2012 he has been transferred on deputation with mala fide intention of the respondent No,3. The learned counsel contends that some Head Constables who were senior to the petitioner were not transferred and a policy, of pick and choose was adopted. The learned counsel goes on to submit that a vested right of the petitioner was infringed and the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside as the same is subject to' the judicial scrutiny by this Court. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution have been infringed in. This case. The petitioner has already submitted departmental representation to the RPO and I.G.P. Punjab but as yet no response has been received. It has been prayed that the impugned order may be declared illegal, ultra vires and inoperative upon the rights of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to 1994 SCMR 1548, 2010 PLC (C.S.) 668 [Karachi], 2010 PLC (C.S.) 882 [Lahore], 2008 PLC (C.S.) 892 [Lahore] and 2009 PLC (C.S.) 44 [Lahore] in support of hers arguments.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4.Admittedly, through this constitutional petition the transfer order has been, assailed on the grounds that it was based on mala fide intention of respondent No,3 and was discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed vested right to serve at the present post. Admittedly, transfer relates to the terms and conditions of service and it is the prerogative of the competent authority to transfer a civil servant from one place to another as the petitioner had no legal right to be posted against a particular post so no question of infringement of legal rights arises. The question of posting of a Government servant squarely falls within the jurisdictional domain of competent authority subject to law and rules.
4. Admittedly, 'the transfer relates to terms and conditions of service and the petitioner had no legal right to be posted against a particular post. Hence the question of its infringement does not arise. The civil servant has no fundamental right to serve only at a particular station. He can be asked to serve anywhere by the competent authority. There is no hard and fast rule that only seniors should be transferred first so the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not convincing. As regards the case-law referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is not applicable, to the instant case as the facts and circumstances thereof are quite distinguishable.
5. In 2007 SCMR 54 [Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others]:-- the apex Court held as under:- "that orders of departmental authorities, even' though without jurisdiction or mala fide could be challenged only before the Services Tribunal and jurisdiction of Civil Court including High Court was specifically ousted. Plea of mala fide did not confer upon High Court jurisdiction to act in the matter in view of constitutional ouster as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. Services Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to interfere in such like matteRs, Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by the High Court. The question of posting of a Government servant squarely falls within the jurisdictional domain of competent authority, subject to law and rules made thereunder. The question of posting/transfer relates to terms and conditions of a Government servant so Services Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to dilate upon and decide such matteRs, The jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked to get such controversies resolved."
7. Even in 2011 SCMR 592 [Government of Sindh through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and others v. Nazakat Ali and others] it was observed by apex Court that in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, the High Court has to determine first as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain such constitutional petition or not. The said Writ Petition related to release of salary and it was held by apex Court that jurisdiction of High Court in matter relating to terms and conditions of service was barred. Reliance is also placed on 1998 SCMR 2280 [Khalid Mehmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others].
8. In the instant case the impugned order was found to be a routine transfer order and not only the petitioner but 24 other Head Constables have also been transferred through the impugned order.
So there was nothing exceptional in it.
9. In the light of the above discussion and relying upon the case-law referred to above in para.7, the. Writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, so the same is hereby dismissed in limine.