' This judgment shall dispose off abovementioned appeal filed by the appellant Shafqat Shaheen, DDEO (W-EE), Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh against Order No, SO(SE-II)PF-821/2010 dated 19.07.2012 passed by Secretary School Education Department, whereby her services were placed at the disposal of District Coordination Officer, Muzaffargarh for further posting, against Order No, SO(SE-II)PF-231/2009 dated 15.11.2012, passed by Secretary School Education Department on the direction of appellate authority/Chief Secretary Punjab, whereby she was further posted as DDEO(W-EE), Tehsil & District Chakwal and Order No, SO (SE-II) PF-167/2008 dated 30.11.2012, whereby in partial modification of earlier order dated 15.11.2012 the appellant was posted/adjusted as Senior Subject Specialist (BS-18/History), Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Seetpur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Brief facts as coincided from the memorandum of appeal are that the appellant was posted as DDEO (W-EE), Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh vide order dated 01.11.2011. This transfer and posting order was assailed by Respondent No, 7/Mrs. Nighat Saeed Chishti, Senior Headmistress, Govt. Girls High School Gormani, District Muzaffargar in Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan through Writ Petition No, 14315/11, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 16.02.2012. As a result thereof, the appellant remained continued to perform his duties as DDEO (W-EE), Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. Later, the competent authority/ Secretary School Education Department vide order dated 19.07.2012 transferred the appellant from said post and placed her services at the disposal of DCO Muzaffargarh, and posted Respondent No, 7 as DDEO (W-EE ) Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. The appellant aggrieved by this order preferred departmental appeal to Respondent No, 1/Chief Secretary Punjab and also filed Writ Petition No, 9936/2012 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.09.2012 with the direction to Chief Secretary, Punjab to decide the appellant's representation within fortnight and till then the operation of order dated 19.07.2012 was suspended. Complying with the direction of Hon'ble High Court, the Chief Secretary after giving personal hearing, approved transfer/posting of both; the appellant as well as Respondent No, 7 out of district Muzaffargarh against their substantive posts. Resultantly, the Respondent No, 2 passed order dated 15.11.2012 whereby Respondent No, 7 was posted as Senior Headmistress (BS-18), Govt. Girls High School, Chourghasti, District Attock and appellant was posted as DDEO (W-EE), Tehsil & District Chakwal. However, in partial modification of order dated 15.11.2012 another order dated 30.11.2012 was passed, whereby appellant was posted/adjusted as SSS, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Seetpur, District Muzaffargarh and Respondent No, 7 was posted/actuated as Senior Headmistress, Govt. Girls High School, Gurmani, District Muzaffargarh on administrative grounds. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant service appeal on 04.12.2012.
3. Record as produced by the department, memorandum of appeal along with its annexures and comments of the respondents were perused.
4. Perusal of memorandum of appeal reveals that the appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned orders mainly on the ground that she was transferred frequently despite the fact that she was selected by the Search Committee after thorough scrutiny of the record. It has been alleged that the orders impugned were passed in violation of transfer policy in order to accommodate the Respondent No, 7 on extraneous pressure, which is against the mandate of law and misuse of administrative authority. It was next contended therein that the Government of Punjab through circular letter dated 10.08.2009 issued guidance for the transfer/ posting in School Education Department in which it was clearly mentioned that "no transfer shall be made before completion of tenure of three years", but in the instant 'matter before completing her three years tenure against the post of DDEO (W.EE), Kot Addu, the appellant was transferred in an arbitrary manner.
5. The learned District Attorney assisted by Mst. Yasmin Hussain, learned Law Officer argued that the respondents did not violate the transfer policy at all as the appellant was transferred/adjusted purely on administrative grounds. Further submitted that transfer/posting cannot be claimed as a matter of right. According to him the appellant being a civil servant is liable to serve anywhere in the province of Punjab as per Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
6. Due consideration has been given to the narrations made by the learned counsel for the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and the arguments put forth by the learned District Attorney. It is observed that matters of transfer/posting of a civil servant are dealt with according to the provisions of Section 9 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 as well as transfer policy. Section 9 of the Act ibid provides that every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere within or outside the province. So request of appellant regarding cancellation of his transfer orders amounts to interference in the working of Govt. Department on administrative side. Posting of choice cannot be a preference and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right particularly when nothing is thereto be considered as an act based on malafide.
7. It is also surfaced from perusal of the case file that on 04.12.2012, operation of impugned orders was suspended by this Tribunal till the next date of hearing i,e, 17.12.2012 (for a particular span of time). But after next date of hearing, no application was moved by the department for vacation of temporary injunction, which speaks volumes of disinterest and ill attitude of the department.
Beside the above portrayed picture, three years of normal tenure of posting against a post by the appellant has been elapsed, therefore, there remains no cause of action and right with the appellant to remain posted further against the post of DDEO (W-EE), Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. Even otherwise, it is not a case of any ill will or personal vendetta. The orders of authorities with regard to transfer of the appellant have been found well reasoned and in consonance with the law and do not call for any interference by this Tribunal especially when the cause of action on part of the appellant has ceased to exist. Last opportunity to defend the case was provided to counsel for the appellant on the previous date of hearing as the case has been delayed mainly because of disinterest of the prosecution as is evident by the interim order sheet. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is rejected being meritless.