' The petitioner is serving as a Patwari in Irrigation Department. He was transferred from Halqa Chak Chaudhary to Halqa Tondey vide order dated 18-9-1990. The petitioner has challenged this order through this Constitutional petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the respondent No, 3 had no jurisdiction to order transfer of the petitioner, therefore, the order is bad in law.
3. On the other hand, learned Addl. A.-G. Argued that the Provincial Government imposed a ban on the transfers of the civil servants and according to the policy circular dated 18-3-1990, transfers could only be made with the approval of the Ministers. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the Minister directed the transfer of respondent No,
2. It is added that even otherwise under section 9 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1975 the petitioner is liable to be posted anywhere.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The Minister only recommended transfer and the order was issued by respondent No,
2. The respondent No, 3 represented to the Minister that he is posted at a distant place from his home, therefore, may be transferred. The request was found genuine and the Minister recommended his transfer. There is nothing wrong with the recommendation. The order was passed by respondent No,
2. The petitioner has failed to show any violation of law or rules.
Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.
' The result is that the writ petition is dismissed.