MUJAHID MUSTAQEEM AHMED, J.----By this single order, I intend to dispose of the instant writ petition and connected W. P. No,11358/2018 (Mazhar Hussain v. Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan and others), as both these matters have arisen between the same parties.
2. Facts of the case necessary for disposal of these petitions are that the petitioner was serving as Office Attendant in Dental Paramedical School, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, and vide order dated 20.06.2018, passed by the Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan (hereinafter to be referred as "the Institute"), he has been transferred in Admin. Branch of the said Institute. The petitioner assailed this order by filing W.P.No,9594/2018, mainly on the grounds of mala fide and without jurisdiction.
3. Whereas, the petitioner by filing W.P.No,11358/2018 has assailed the legality and propriety of order dated 23.06.2018, passed by respondent No,2, by which Amjad Abbas, Lab Attendant/ respondent No,4 has been ordered to take-over the charge of Store of Dental Paramedical School.
4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for earned leave, but the same was not accorded by the authority, and the petitioner filed W.P.No,9098/2018 before this Court. As such, impugned orders have been passed to take revenge of approaching this Court. Moreover, under The Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, read with The Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, the Principal of the Institute is the competent authority to pass the transfer orders.
5. Whereas, learned Law Officer, by referring letter No,10853-57, dated 13.11.2015, issued by the Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, has maintained that the Principal is holding the additional charge of the Office, who has delegated powers of transfer and posting of Gazetted and non-gazetted staff of the Department to the Medical Superintendent of the Institute and, as such, the orders impugned herein have been passed in exercise of delegated powers conferred on respondent No,2. It is further added that by the impugned orders, the petitioner will perform his duties in the same premises and, as such, the administrative order passed by the competent authority is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Contention heard.
7. The petitioner himself has placed on record copy of office Order No,3033-36/NMC&H/Multan, dated 09.02.2015, indicating that the petitioner was initially working in Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan. Whereas, vide impugned order dated 20.06.2018, the petitioner has been transferred in the same Institute [post against which he was already working in year 2015]. This transfer is not disadvantageous to the petitioner as he has been transferred against the same post/grade. There is no allegation of any political pressure against respondent No,2 while passing the impugned orders. Whereas, plea of mala fide of respondent No,2 is not supported by any tangible material. Of course, the authority has to decide the request of any employee for leave as per leave rules, also taking into consideration the urgency expressed by its employee, shortage of the staff and the number of employees already on leave. Though in ordinary course transfer is not expected to be made till completion of tenure for 3 years but the department can make transfer in the exigency of work before that period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1995 SC 530) has observed that the transfer can be made in the following manner:-
(a) The transfer involves appointment to higher service or a post carrying higher emoluments.
(b) The transfer is being made to a post for which the officer has special aptitude, qualifications or experience.
(c) The officer has proved unsuitable in the post from which he is being transferred.
(d) The officer holding a lien on the post, has become available.
(e) Transfer is on compassionate grounds.
This Court in case Tahir Mehmood Abbasi and another v. District Coordination Officer, Rawalpindi and another (2009 PLC (C. S.) 320) has held that transfer of government functionary/employee from one place bf posting to another one was neither punishment nor violation of terms and conditions of service. The Authority had the prerogative to utilize services of its staff members at a place and against a position of its discretion keeping in view the administrative consideration confronting the authority. This Court in another case Tariq Mehmood Malik v. Chief Executive Officer and others (2018 PLC (C. S.) 664) has held that the employee had no vested right to remain posted at a place of his own choice nor could he insist that he must be posted atone place or the other. Of course, the employee was liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to another. The competent authority had prerogative to transfer any employee and as a general rule the Courts should refrain from interfering in posting and transfer matters, when there was no element of mala fide or such plea was taken without any substance.
8. As informed by the learned Law Officer, new place of posting of present petitioner is also in the same premises, as such, the petitioner has failed to convince the Court that by the orders, impugned herein, his any right has been infringed. Of course, transfer and posting is part of service and it is for the authority to see that where services of any staff member are required. If in such administrative matters, interference is made by the Courts in routine, the working of the public Departments will be adversely affected and the masses for whose welfare such Institutions have been established by spending huge amount of exchequer/tax-payers will be the ultimate sufferers.
9. As noticed supra, respondent No,2 has exercised the delegated powers of the Principal of the Institute, therefore, the order impugned herein cannot be termed as without jurisdiction or without lawful authority.
10. For what has been discussed above, the impugned orders have been passed by the authority in exercise of delegated powers in best interest of the department and the plea of mala fide of respondent No,2 while passing the impugned orders, raised by the petitioner is devoid of any merits. As such, both the writ petitions are dismissed.