' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has sought a declaration that impugned order dated 4-10-1990 is illegal and mala fide. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that respondent No, 1 has proceeded in an illegal and manner unbecoming of a Head of Department. It is submitted that in about a month's time there were at least half a dozen orders passed in respect of the transfer of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the whole trouble is that respondent No, 2 is a son-in-law of a dear friend of respondent No, 1 and he wanted to give him a station of his choice.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General as well as learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 have argued that transfer is a part of terms and conditions of a civil servant, therefore, the jurisdiction of all Courts including this Court is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is added that according to section 9 a civil servant is liable to be posted anywhere. In this behalf, the reliance is placed on the cases of Begum Ismat Azhar v. Punjab Government through Secretary, Education and another PLD 1987 Lah. 256, Maqbool Ahmad v. Executive Engineer, Sheikhupura Division, Sheikhupura and another 1987 PLC (C.S.) 761 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Dr. Safdar Mahmood PLD 1983 SC 100.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The arguments on both sides and pleadings paint a very ugly picture of the situation prevalent in the Punjab Communication and Works Department. The petitioner and respondent No,3 were posted at Sargodha and Mianwali in 2nd Provincial Buildings Sub-Divisions while respondent No,3 was posted in 1st Sub-Division, Mianwali. The respondent No,1 proceeded to transfer the petitioner to Mianwali and posted.
Respondent No,3 in his place vide transfer order dated 8-9-1990. The matter as usual did not rest here but was followed by series of orders. The next order is dated 13-9-1990 and through this order earlier order of transfer was cancelled. This was followed by order dated 19-9-1990, withdrawing the last mentioned order dated 13-9-1990 and directing implementation of first order dated 8-9- 1990. This was closely followed by order dated 23-9-1990, according to which respondent No,2, who was under transfer was re-transferred to Ist Provincial Building Sub-Division, Sargodha vice respondent No,3, who was transferred and posted in 2nd Provincial Building Sub-Division, Mianwali while this time petitioner was allowed to continue as S.D.O., 2nd Provincial Building Sub-Division, Sargodha. The respondent No,1 two days thereafter issued yet another order dated 25-9-1990 in suppression of his last order. The result was that respondent No,3 was posted in place of the petitioner in 2nd Provincial Building Sub-Division, Sargodha and this time petitioner was transferred to Ist Provincial Building Sub-Division, Sargodha instead of respondent No,3, who was transferred to 2nd Provincial Building Sub-Division, Mianwali vice respondent No,2. The natural consequence of this order was that respondent No,2 stood transferred to 2nd Provincial Building Sub-Division, Sargodha. The matter was concluded with the order dated 4-10-1990, according to which orders dated 23-9-1990 and 25-9-1990 were withdrawn while order dated 19-9-1990 was directed to be implemented.
5. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of violation of law and rules warranting interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The mere fact that Head of the Department is not consistent, lacks decisive powers and lowers the dignity of the office by passing contradictory orders will not be sufficient to warrant interference in Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. Before parting with this judgment it must be recorded that the respondent No,1, who has reached the apex of the Department lacks decisive power, which should be the basic requirement for occupying top position in the Department. This is not the solitary instance but there are many other petitions depicting the same sad story. One can easily guess the root cause of destruction of service structure after going through See-Saw type orders. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, for taking remedial measures.
7. The result is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.