' This order is intended to dispose of the following writ petitions:- (i) Writ Petition No, 4176 of 1994.
(i) Mr. Zeb Mazhar Ali Bhatti v. Province of the Punjab and others. (ii) Writ Petition No, 4361 of 1994.
(ii) Miss Rubina Shaheen v. District Education Officer, Female (E), Multan and others.
(iii) Writ Petition No, 4586 of 1994.
Mst. Shahina Aurangzeb v. Government of the Punjab through Education Department and others.
(iv) Writ Petition No, 4603 of 1994.
(v) Saeed Ahmad v. Director S.E. Multan Division, Multan and another.
' Through different orders of different dates passed by the Officers of the Education Department the aforesaid employees of the Education Department have been transferred who have assailed the relevant transfer orders on the grounds of the competence of the officer transferring them, inconvenience to the writ petitioner and indulgence by some influential person.
2. The Officers of the Education Department have put in appearance in the aforesaid writ petitions and have taken up the plea that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the writ petitions on merits as the transfer of a civil servant is an exigency of service under section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act and the transfer of a person being a condition of his service the appeal is maintainable before the Service Tribunal, Punjab under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act especially when the transfer of a civil servant is not a matter about the fitness or otherwise of that civil servant to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade as mentioned in proviso B of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. With respect to the objection raised by the contesting respondents Article 212(2) of the Constitution of the country has been referred to according to which in any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court or Tribunal no other Court can grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of the same. The main contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that the orders transferring the petitioners are without jurisdiction which are based on mala fides and for that reason this Court having the supervisory jurisdiction can look into the same and make an analysis. I do not agree with them. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents have relied upon Muhammad Shafi etc. v. Education Authorities (NLR 1992 TD 728, Lahore) wherein it has been held that the appeal lies from order without jurisdiction just as appeal lies from order with jurisdiction and that the mere fact that the orders were issued on the direction of the Chief Minister would not render them orders of non-departmental- authorities which would nonetheless remain appealable under section 4 before the Service Tribunal. They also relied on Dr. Hanif Arif v. Secretary, Health, Government of the Punjab (PLD 1993 Lah. 286) according to which it has been held that the Constitutional petition against transfer orders of civil servants was incompetent and the affected civil servant can approach the Service Tribunal for the redress of the grievance. The main contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that the orders being without jurisdiction the same can be analysed by this Court. Relying upon the aforesaid case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents it can safely be held that the appeal is maintainable before the Punjab Service Tribunal against the order regarding any civil servant. A perusal of Article 212 of the Constitution would make out that an order of a Departmental Authority even if it is without jurisdiction or is mala fide can be challenged before the Services Tribunal and the jurisdiction of all other Courts including this Court stands ousted.
According to the case reported in PLD 1983 SC 100 Supreme Court of Pakistan held that "under the new dispensation, the Service Tribunal was made the sole arbitrator of all disputes relevant to the terms and conditions of the civil servants and the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts was altogether excluded in these matters". Legally the transfer of a civil servant is an exigency of service and if any exception is to be taken thereto by the effected civil servant the same having connection to the terms and conditions of service can be gone into, appreciated and analysed by the Service Tribunal and not by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
' Following para. 5 is reproduced from the ruling Nasim Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab (NLR 1992 TD 672 Lahore) (D.B.):-- "5. Before parting with the case we may also observe that the orders of transfer are not an appropriate subject for agitation before this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction as has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in view of the provisions contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973."
4. Consequently I hold that these writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution which cannot proceed before this Court.
5. I, therefore, dismiss all these writ petitions in limine.