' AJMAL MIAN, J.- In these two petitions the petitioners have sought identical reliefs and, therefore, by this common judgment we intend to dispose of the same. It may be advantageous to 'quote herein-below the reliefs sought by the petitioner in one of the petitions, which is contained in the last para. Of the petition, which reads as follows :-
(I) "declare the recommendations of the Service Board in relation to the petitioner's promotion and the orders of the respondents -reverting the petitioner from the post of the Assistant (Grade-8) to the post of the Senior Clerk (Grade-6) and the directions incidental thereto for deductions from salary are illegal, partial, mala fide, ultra vires of the provisions of the M. L. 0, 55, against the principles of natural justice and without lawful authority and quash the same so far as they relate to the petitioner.
(2) Declare that under the circumstances explained in the petition the petitioner's reversion to a lower post is unlawful and being a confirmed Assistant in Grade-8 he is entitled to hold the said post and enjoy the same status without break and to draw the same salary which he was drawing before passing of the impugned orders.
(3) grant any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed proper by the Hon'ble High Court under the circumstances of the case.
(4) Award the costs of the petition."
' It is the case of the petitioners that they were employees of the defunct-Landhi and Korangi Municipal Committee and, therefore, they were transferred to the respondent, but under M. L.
0. 55 issued by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C" they were demoted.
2. It has been contended by Mr. Mazhar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner that the above demotion orders are mala fide, illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the above M. L.
0. On the other hand it has been contended by Mr. S. M. Muslim Naqvi, learned counsel for the respondent that the above petitions have abated in view of Article 15(5) and (6) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The reliance is placed on the judgment dated 27th August, 1981 given by a D. B. Of this Court in Constitutional Petition No, D-1330/1978 in which it was held that the petition had abated.
Mr. Mazharuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his above contentions has urged that it is a well-settled principle of law that mala fide action or an action in contravention of a provision of law can be enquired into by a civil Court notwithstanding the exclusion of its jurisdiction by any provision of law. The above contention in our view cannot be pressed into service in view of the reasons recorded in the above judgment dated 27th August, 1981.
The petitioners have themselves admitted that the impugned orders were passed under M. L.
0.
55. If that is so, we cannot probe into the question of mala fide or the question, as to whether there has been any alleged violation of the provisions of the above M. L.
0. Even otherwise, the judgment given by a C. P. No, D-1330/1978 is binding on us.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that we declare that the above two petitions have abated.
Petitions held abated.