' The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of his transfer, dated 4-9-1995 passed by respondent No,1 Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub-Division, Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare reading of the impugned order shows that it has been passed under the instructions of the Minister for Revenue Government of the Punjab. The impugned order is reproduced below:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The learned counsel submits that the abovementioned order is without jurisdiction because the Minister has no authority to give directions for the transfer of the petitioner and the transferring authority respondent No, 1 instead of passing an order independent of the instructions, has merely mechanically followed the instructions of the Minister which is illegal and ab initio void. Reliance in this connection is placed on Abdur Rauf v. Director, Local, Government and Rural Development, Sargodha and another 1989 PLC (C.S.) 436, wherein it was held that:-- "Minister for Local Government and Rural Development had no authority to transfer a Sub-Engineer of his Department under any provision of law/rule or instruction made by Competent Authority. The Director of Local Government and Rural Development who is Competent Authority, ' has not passed impugned order of transfer after independent application of his mind, but in pursuance of order of Minister who had no jurisdiction in matter."
' And the order impugned therein was, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and without any legal effect. Reliance is also placed on Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others 1993 SCMR 1287, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court granted leave to examine the question of law of public importance viz. Whether Members of the Legislative Assemblies or Ministers act within the powers and jurisdiction to get appointments made to Government offices and posts; whether, they could not "interfere" with the rights of civil servants, whether, they were bound by the procedure prescribed for the appointment of Government servants; and whether their conduct in the case was "an example of unnecessary interference in the affairs of the Government functionaries". The Honourable Supreme Court while allowing the appeals held that the allocation of quota of posts to the local M.PAs. Or M.NAs. For recruitment to the posts is offensive to the Constitution and the law on the subject. The service laws designate, in the case of all appointments a departmental authority competent to make such appointments whose judgment and discretion is to be exercised honestly and objectively in the public interest and cannot be influenced or subordinated to the judgment of anyone else including his superior.. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on Abdur Rashid v. Riazuddin and others 1995 SCMR 999 to the similar effect.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No,2 has tried to argue that the transfer order was passed by the competent Authority i,e, respondent No,1 and as such the requirement of law has been fulfilled and has also raised an objection in regard to the maintainability of this Constitutional petition and reference in this regard is made to the prohibitory clause as contained in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. I am afraid the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No,2 have no force. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that it has been passed by respondent No,1 under the direction of the Minister and the Minister concerned admittedly has no authority under the law to order the A transfer of any civil servant or direct the Competent Authority to transfer and as such the order of the petitioner's transfer is without jurisdiction and the learned counsel for the petitioner has correctly placed reliance on Abdur Rauf v. Director, Local Government and Rural Development; Sargodha and another (supra), in which it was held that Minister has no authority to issue a direction for the transfer and similarly the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with the appeals in consequence of allocation of quota to local M.PAs. Or M.NAs. For recruitment of posts in Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others (supra), has categorically held that the service laws designate, in the case of all appointments, a departmental authority competent to make such appointments, and Such authority has to exercise its judgment and discretion honestly and objectively in the public interest and the Competent Authority cannot be allowed to be influenced or subordinate to the judgment of anyone else including his superior. The view of the Honourable Supreme Court is equally applicable to the transfer matters and in the instant case the Competent Authority for passing an order of petitioner's transfer is respondent No,1 and respondent No,1 passed the order of petitioner's transfer under the instructions of Minister which is offensive to the Constitution and the law on the subject and admittedly in the present case the Minister has no authority to pass the order of petitioner's transfer and the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in the public interest and as such it is without jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above discussion, this petition is accepted and the impugned order, dated 4-9- 1995 of petitioner's transfer is set aside.