The facts, as stated in this application are that Mst. Shamsa Naheed, the review applicant, was working as a PTC teacher in Thatha. Beg, and in January, 1993, she was transferred to Government Girls Primary School Taleemul Islam, Okara, and she resumed duty in said school. It is alleged that subsequently, due to political pressure, exerted by respondent No.4, the review applicant was transferred to Chak No.18/1-R, vide order dated 27-5-1993.
According to the applicant, on her representation, the said order was cancelled on 12-6-1993, and the latter order was also cancelled on 28-7-1993.
Subsequently, another development took place, in that order dated 1-8-1993 was issued, whereby the order dated 28-7-1993 was kept in abeyance with the result that the review applicant was directed to continue working at GPS/Taleem-ul-Islam, Okara.
Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.11103 of 1993. A copy of the said writ petition was handed over to the learned Law Officer and he was directed to enter appearance on 5-9-1993, after getting in touch with the concerned quarters. On 5-9-1993 Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhary, Assistant Education Officer, appeared with the learned Law Officer and made a statement that the order impugned in the writ petition had since been withdrawn. Consequently, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner did not press the writ petition, which was accordingly disposed of as not pressed.
2. Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that his client was not heard at the time the order sought to be reviewed was passed. It is further submitted that the review applicant is a Pardahnashin unmarried lady and she would be greatly inconvenienced if she is forced to go to the new place of posting. In the circumstances, it was prayed that the order of this Court under review may be recalled and the writ petition may be heard on merits.
3. Transfer of a Government servant from one place to another forms part of the terms and conditions of his/her service and Article 212 of the Constitution is a complete bar to the maintainability of a writ petition or for that matter a review application. The order impugned in the writ petition was not withdrawn on the direction of this Court. The Assistant Education Officer appeared before the Court and stated that the order impugned in the writ petition had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as not pressed. The applicant, if so advised, may approach the higher departmental authorities/Service Tribunal, for the redress of her grievance.
4. There is no justification to hear the writ petition on merits, which is not competent at all in view of the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution, as stated above. The review application is dismissed with the above observations.