MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.--- Akhtar Ali Shah, Mirza Muhammad Athar Latif and Rao Umar Daraz Khan, who are Programme Manager, Senior Producer and Assistant News Editor, respectively at Radio Pakistan Multan have filed this petition to assail the vires of the order dated 19.11.2014 passed on behalf of the Director General Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Headquarters Islamabad (PBC), respondent No,2, contending that their transfers from Multan to Mianwali, Loralai in the Province of Balochistan and Islamabad are unjustified, unwarranted and stem from mala fides. It has been alleged that Station Director, PBC, Multan prevailed upon respondent No,2 to make transfers of the petitioners. It has been further averred in the petition that the petitioners are members of PBC Workers Union and they put up Nazim Malik as Chairman at the referendum held on 23.10.2014 for the election of Collector Bargaining. Agent (CBA). Their candidate was defeated, while their opponent, Ahmad Nawaz of United Staff Organization was declared successful. It is the assertion of the petitioners that respondent No,4, Station Director PBC, Multan, was supporting United Staff Organizition- during the election. In order to victimize them, he has managed and maneuvered the transfers of the petitioners from Multan to far-off places to get rid of them.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents, who filed reports and para-wise comments. In their comments, they denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioners. .It was pointed out that when the petitioners were inducted into service, it was made deal to them that they were liable to be transferred to any part of Pakistan. Furthermore, the services of the petitioners fall under the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. Therefore, if they have been ordered to assume charge at Mianwali, Loralai and Islamabad, they cannot refuse to do so. It was further maintained in the comments that the petitioners have already enjoyed the normal tenure of three years at Multan. It has also been added that the summary for the transfers in question was prepared on 17.4.2014. At the relevant time, the holding of referendum was not in sight. Therefore, the question of victimization raised by the petitioners is just a ruse and untenable excuse on their part. In support of their pleas, the respondents have also attached a number of documents with the comments furnished by them.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. In order to buttress his arguments, he also placed reliance upon the judgments reported as "Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 1995 SC 530) and "Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2013 SC 195). The pith and substance of his arguments is that transfers can be made only in the public interest and on administrative grounds or where exigencies of a situation so demand. Otherwise, all transfers made by a Government Department or an autonomous body or a Corporation funded by the Government of Pakistan would be deemed to have been made with ulterior motives.
4.On the other hand, Mr. Ajmal Hussain Qureshi, the learned Standing Counsel for Pakistan and Pir Masood ul Hassan Chishti " Advocate, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 4 have strenuously opposed the submissions made by the petitioners' aside. They made reference to various documents attached with the comments filed by respondents Nos .2 to 4 to contend that the allegations levelled against respondent No,4, Station Director PBC, Multan are not borne out by the record.
5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
6From a perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that Station Director, PBC, Multan, respondent No,4 is not a competent authority to order the transfers of the petitioners. The orders were made by respondent No,2. When asked as to whether Ms. Samina Pervaiz, Director General PBC, Islamabad, respondent No,2 has an axe to grind or whether she was interested in the promotion of a particular union, the answer was a big "No". Therefore, no case can be built upon the allegations made against the Station Director PBC, Multan, respondent No,4. At this juncture, it needs to be stressed that none of the petitioners was a candidate at the referendum for the election of CBA at PBC, Multan. Furthermore, the entire election was supervised by Ms. Samina Pervaiz, Director General PBC, Islamabad, respondent No,2 against whom neither any allegation has been made nor have her bona fides challenged by the petitioners.
7. From a perusal of the impugned orders dated 19,11.2014, it cannot be gathered that the petitioners have been victimized. Akhtar Ali A Shah, petitioner No,1 is a Programme Manager at PBC, Multan. He has been made Station Director at PBC, Mianwal Mirza Muhammad Athar Latif, petitioner No,2, is a Senior Producer at.PBC, Multan and he has also been made Station Director, PBC Loralai. As for the third petitioner, Rao Umar Daraz Khan, who is performing his duties as Assistant News Editor, PBC, Multan, he has been transferred to PBC, Central News Organization, Islamabad in the same capacity. Therefore, the question of downgrading of any of the petitioners does not arise at all.
8.It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 applies to the petitioners. Again, at the time of their induction into PBC, it was made clear to them that their services are liable to be transferred to any part of Pakistan. By challenging their transfer orders, the petitioners are literally going back on their commitments.
9.This brings me to the question whether the transfer orders of the petitioners have been made in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in various judgments.
The following table would indicate as to when each of the petitioners assumed charge at PBC, Multan:- Sr. No.Name and DesignationStay during entire service FromTo Period Y-M- DStation/Unit 03 Mr. Akhtir Ali Shad Programme Manager i. Producer ii. Producer iii. Sr. Producer iv. Sr. Producer Prog. Manager 03.12.1988 02.6.1989 04.11.1997 10.9.1999 25.6.2011 01.6.1989 23.10.1997 09.2.1999 24.6.2011 Till date 0.05.28 10-04-21 01.03.05 14.01.09 PBA Islamabad PBC Multan PBC Turbat PBC Multan
06. Mirza Ather Latif i. Sr. Producer ii. Proucer iii. Sr. Producer 24.1.2005 29.52012 28.5.2012 Till date 07-04-04 01.05.19 PBC Multan PBC Multan 10.A close study of the chart set out above would knock the bottom out of the case of the petitioners. To return to the law laid down in the case. reported as "Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others" '(PLD 1995 SC 530), the apex Court had disapproved of transfer orders passed in haste or from time to time or with a view to victimizing the employees and it was also pointed out that the normal tenure of a public servant at a place is not to be less than three years.
11.In the case of "Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 2013 SC 195), the apex Court of Pakistan summed up the law on the subject. The relevant portion therefrom is reproduced as under: "16. In the Hail Corporation case, the Court reiterated its earlier ruling in Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1995 SC 530), where it had been held that "the normal period of posting of a Government servant at a station, according to Rule 21 of the Rules of Business is three years, which has to be followed in the ordinary circumstances, unless for reasons or exigencies of service a transfer before expiry of the said period becomes necessary in the opinion of the competent authority." Furthermore, with regard to transfers of civil servants, this Court has stated that transfers by political figures which are capricious and are based on considerations not in the public interest are not legally sustainable. Farrukh Gulzar v. Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and 2 others (1998 SCM R 2222). These are principles of law enunciated by this Court and are to be followed in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution. We, however, repeatedly come across violations of such principles. This unnecessarily leads to litigation which, in turn, clogs Courts and Service Tribunals."
' At another place of the above judgment, the principles of law were summarized as under:-- "22.(i) Appointments, Removals and Promotions: Appointments, removals and promotions must be made in accordance with the law and the rules made thereunder; where no such law or rule exists and the matter has been left to discretion, such discretion must be exercised in a structured, transparent and reasonable manner and in the public interest.
(ii) Tenure, posting and transfer: When the ordinary tenure for a posting has been specified in the law or rules made thereunder, such tenure must be respected and cannot be varied, except for compelling reasons, which should be recorded in writing and are judicially reviewable."
12. The above litmus test has been applied to the case of the petitioners. Their transfer orders do not suffer from any infirmities nor have they been passed in flagrant violation of any principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, they cannot be struck down.
13. Looked at from whatever angle, there is no merit in the instant writ petition, which accordingly is dismissed.