M ALIK INAYAT-UR-RAHM AN, J. This writ petition under Article 86(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2018, has been filed by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is working as Chief Consultant Gyne in Health Department Gilgit-Baltistan and the respondent No. 2 has unlawfully posted/transferred the petitioner vide Notification No. SEC-H- 1(28)/2020 dated 24.6.2021 and movement order vide No. 1120/PHQ/2019 dated 05.07.2021 passed by respondent No.4, which are unlawful, discriminatory and based on mala fides and void ab-initio in the eyes of law and prayed that:- a. Unlawful order of posting, transfer of the petitioner vide No. Sec-H-1(28)/2020 dated 24.06.2021, and movement order No. 1120/PHG/2019 dated 05.07.2021 may very graciously be declared as ab-initio null and void. b. Show-cause notice vide No. Sec-H-1(32)/2020 dated 09.08.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 may also be declared as void and respondent No. 2 may be directed to withdraw the same notice in the larger interest of justice. c. Any other remedy as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of the case may also be granted in favour of petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of justice.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a bona fide resident of Gilgit- Baltistan and is serving as Chief Consultant Gyne in Health Department Gilgit-Baltistan. The petitioner was appointed as regular Lady Medical Officer in BPS-17 through FPSC on 28.10.1993 and since then the petitioner is serving in GB Health Department. The petitioner holds post graduate Diploma in Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGO) since August 2001. He further argued that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Consultant Gynecologist (BPS-18) on 14.12.2004 after departmental undue delay of three years which has badly affected seniority of the petitioner in her service career and despite earning eligibility for further promotion, the department did not promote the petitioner and instead promoted some other doctors who had earned qualification after the petitioner, but for unknown reasons, the petitioner was not promoted at due time which act of respondents badly affected service rights of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner got promotion against the post of Senior Consultant Gynecologist (BPS-19) in May 2010 and was promoted to the post of Chief Consultant Gyne (BPS- 20) in April 2019. That like injustice made in her promotion, the department also committed further injustice and discrimination with the petitioner in posting and transfer which is evident from the facts about the frequent posting and transfers of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the order of posting transfer and movement order are totally unlawful which have been issued on arbitrary manner by misuse of administrative powers on part of the respondents Nos.2 and 4 which are liable to be set aside. The respondents failed to keep in mind exercise excesses made in posting and transfer of the petitioner during her service and issued the new order of posting and transfer once again in an unlawful manner as no any plausible justification has been shown for the posting order in question. The learned counsel further argued that there are two other Chief Consultant Gynecologists in (BPS-20) posted at PHQ Hospital Gilgit in addition to many. Gynecologist in BPS-19, BPS-18 and BPS-17 who are also post graduate and who have never been posted anywhere else throughout their service career and the petitioner being one of the senior most officer/specialist is entitled to work on the senior post. The petitioner as Chief Consultant is also entitled to head a team of professionals and to give her expert services in the management of complicated cases at tertiary care hospitals, while the respondents are insistent to remove the petitioner from tertiary care hospital just to accommodate and promote some blue eyed one, hence both the unlawful orders of posting/transfer of the petitioner as well as movement order may very kindly be declared as ab initio, null and void to meet the ends of justice.
3. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ibrahim-ud-Din, L.A. for the Health Department strongly opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the instant writ petition is against the law, procedure and mandatory provisions of law and is liable to be dismissed and also submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the instant writ petition against the respondents which is not maintainable due to the reasons that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition because the petitioner is government servant and transfer/posting of any government servant falls within the ambit of respondents, hence the petitioner has no locus standie to file writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. He further argued that respondents are fully empowered by law to order transfer/posting of the petitioner from one place to another and transfer of any civil servant can be made by the competent authority in the exigency of services and in the public interest. The civil servant has no legal right to remain posted at a particular place of his/her choice. The petitioner is unable to prove through record that her transfer order if made on purely mala tidies and made for extraneous consideration to accommodate some blue-eyed chap and has it been so proved, the matter would have squarely fall within the jurisdictional domain of Services Tribunal Gilgit- Baltistan. The learned Dy.A.G further submitted that the petitioner has remained in one position of her choice since 2013 and now she has interfered in the smooth functioning of Government activities by filing the instant writ petition in this Hon'ble Court by challenging the powers of competent authority unduly and without just cause therefore, the instant writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and with their able assistance have also perused the record available on file.
5. From bare reading of aforesaid Notification No.SEC-H-1(28)/2020 dated 24.06.2021 of posting/transfer and movement order bearing No. 1120/PHG/2019 dated 05.07.2021, and other available documents, it transpires that the respondents have not committed any material irregularity, discrimination or illegality as the matter of transfer/posting of any government Officer/official in routine is purely in the domain of the concerned competent authority which cannot be challenged in the Court of law in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has remained posted in Gilgit since the year 2013 and is also unable to show that post of (BPS-20) does not exist in Gahkuch Hospital, therefore, alleged mala fides in her posting/transfer are not proved from the record on the file. Respondents are fully empowered by law to transfer/post any subordinate government officer from one place to another and transfer of any civil servant can be made by the competent authority in the exigency of services and in the public interest.
6. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is dismissed being meritless. C. Misc. bearing No. 554/2021 is also disposed of accordingly with the direction that all disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner after her posting till today be deemed ineffective against the petitioner. File.