' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---Petitioner Mst. Niaz Parveen seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28-5-1995 passed by the N.-W.F.P Service Tribunal, whereby appeal filed by respondent Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen was accepted, and the transfer order dated 15-8-1993 was restored.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen was working as LHV at BHU Jan Khan Killi in Khyber Agency. On 8-10-1992 she was transferred to BHU Takhatabad by the Divisional Director Health Services, Peshawar and at her place petitioner Mst. Niaz Parveen was posted. Both of them took their charges. The transfer order was recalled and both of them were transferred to their previous places on 27-4-1993. The Director-General Health again transferred them vice-virsa. The respondent assumed the charge but the petitioner did not. On 6- 7-1993 the transfer order was again cancelled. The petitioner was allowed to remain at BHU, Takhatabad, but the services of respondent Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen were placed at the disposal of Divisional Director Health Services, Peshawar for further posting. On 15-8-1993 Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen was transferred to BHU Takhtabad whereas the petitioner's services were placed at the disposal of Divisional Health Services, Peshawar for further posting. On 8-11-1993 the order dated 15- 8-1993 was cancelled on the direction of Health Minister. Respondent Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen challenged the abovesaid order before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. However, it was withdrawn on 27-9-1994. Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen simultaneously approached N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, who on 28-5-1995 accepted her appeal and cancelled the order dated 8-11-1993 and restored the order dated 15-8-1993. The petitioner has thus come before this Court and has sought for leave to appeal against the abovesaid order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that respondent Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen had filed departmental appeal before the Secretary, Health Services, Government of N.- W.F.P., Peshawar on 6-7-1993. She could have filed appeal before the Service Tribunal within 120 days i,e. Before 5-11-1993. The appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation wherefor no application for condoning the delay was moved. The petitioner had raised the point of limitation but the Service Tribunal on its own accord condoned the delay which was clear violation of section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contended that on the point of limitation the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the appeal. Having failed to do so the order of the Service Tribunal has culminated in miscarriage of justice, which can be rectified by this Court and leave to appeal be granted.
Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner also raised factual controversy. We have gone through the record of the case. It is unfortunate that within a period of one year transfer orders and cancellation of transfer order have been made by authorities in respect of the two LHVs. Such practice adversely affects the efficiency of the incumbents and also reduces their confidence and faith. The act of respondents Nos.2 to 4 has, indeed, left a bad taste in our mouths. The Service Tribunal has rightly deprecated such practice. We do not find any fault with its order. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed accordingly.