IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J. - The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was serving as XEN Public Health Department, Govt of Pakistan when on 12.10.1995 he was posted as S.E. IG and Rd Department However on 16.12.96 he was sent back to his parent department This order was challenged through the present writ petition, which was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was repatriated illegally, without consulting his parent department, against the policy and the order is patently mala fide.
3. On the other hand, the learned Addl.A.G. Submitted that the petitioner was never sent on deputation therefore, his grievance is misconceived while Mr.Masood Ahmad Riaz, Advocate with reference to Annexure 'A' with the writ petition argued that the petitioner was simply posted in the LD & RC Department and it was not a deputation. It is added that this fact is clear from para No.8(ii) of the report and parawise comments Submitted by respondent No.1 The. Arguments were summed up with the submission that the petitioner was slmwn this illegal favour on the.Directive of the .Then Senior Minister. In this behalf reference is placed on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 12481/94, decided on 9.8.1995. It was maintained that the petition against this judgment has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments. It is clear from the preliminary objection No.3 that the petitioner secured undue benefit through the good offices of the then Senior Minister.
This fact alone is sufficient to refuse him relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction because he cannot be allowed to pocket undue benefit secured illegally and through the intervention of a politician. It is clear from order annexure 'A' that it was simply matter of posting and not of sending the petitioner on deputation. Even otherwise there was no valid order of deputation.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed with costs.