MALIK MUHAMMAD QUYYUM, J.- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a service matter.
2. According to the facts stated in this petition, the petitioner who is working as a patwari in Halqa Garjakh has undergone various transfers during a span of about one year. Lastly by order dated 28.2.1994 of the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 3 has been appointed in his place while he has been transferred to Guloki. This order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was passed pursuant to the direction contained in order 27.2.1994 of the Minister for Revenue, Govt, of Punjab, Lahore.
3. The first question which arises is as to the Jurisdiction oh this Spurt to entertain such a petition in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 road with Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, The trend of authorities undoubtedly is that in matters involving transfers of civil servants, this court cannot interfere in the exercise of its constitutional Jurisdiction as it is the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal to do so.
4. Syed Jamshed Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, relied upon the cases of GA.
Mirza vs. Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi (PLJ 1976 Ir. C. (Service) 322), Dr. Muhammad Akbar Farooqi vs. Director Livestock Production Extension & Artificial Insemination Service, Punjab & another (1984 PLC (C.S) [1167), Muhammad Ali Vs. Chairman, WAPDA & others (1986 P.L. C ( C.S.)] 17G) and Farhat Shaheen Akram vs. Government of the Punjab ( 1986 P L G (L.S) 959) from the various Federal Service Tribunals and other Tribunals of various Provinces that the . Tribunals have consistently held that the transfer is a matter not relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants and further that an appeal in such matters was barred by proviso to section 4(2) (b) of the Service Tribunals Act inasmuch as it involves determination of fitness to hold a particular post.
5. The contention of the learned counsel to some extent is supported by the decisions relied upon by him but I am not in a position to give any wight to it in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs. Safdar Mahmood (PLD 1983 S.C. 100) and an unreported judgment in Civil Petition No. 26 of 1992 which was followed by my learned brother Gul Zarin Kiani, J. In Iflikhar Ali vs. Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Sub- Division,' Tehsil Serail Alamgir, District Jhelum (MLD 2364). This declaration of law is binding not only on this Court but also on the Service Tribunals in view of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate then attempted to argue that transfer is not one of the terms of conditions of service but is only an incidence of service . In that context it was explained that "term of service" has reference to the tenure while condition would include the matters like pay, seniority, promotion and confirmation. He cited B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others (AIR 1986 S.C. 1955) in support of this contention. Syed Jamshed Ali also argued that the mere fact that section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is included in Chapter II would not make the matter of transfer as a term and condition of service is not a part of Statutes.
7. There is no merit in this contention. On its plain reading, section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 places 3m obligation on every civil servant to serve any where within or outside the province in any post under the Government of Punjab or the Federal Government as the case may be it, therefore, cannot be argued with any success that posting and transfer is not a condition of service. I am also not in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that the "term of service only refers to the tenure of service. Even otherwise relevant expression is not "term" but "terms". No elaborate discussion on the subject need be made in view of the pronouncement of this Court in Muhammad Asif v. Secretary to Govt of the Punjab, C&W Department Lahore & 4 others (1990 PLC (C.S)257 in which this contention was examined in detail and was repelled. In the same Judgment the subsidiary argument that the transfer of a civil servant involves determination of his fitness was also considered add rejected by ruling that the transfer was in no way germane to fitness of a person to hold a post, and, therefore, proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 had no applicability.
In view of what has been said above, there is no option but to hold that this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their on costs.