1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner Ali Murad, who is Executive Engineer in WAPDA and is governed by Civil Servant Rules, 1973, as adopted by WAPDA, has challenged the order transferring him from O&M Division TPS, Guddu to PEC Project, Dera Murad Jamali.
2. ' On 4th June, 1996 the petitioner was transferred from PEC Project, Dera Murad Jamali, Balochistan to O&M Division TPS, Guddu in place of respondent No, 3 Ali Akbar. On 13-7-1996 he assumed his duties at Guddu.
3. ' It is his case that respondent No, 3, Akbar Ali Bajkani, by using political influence through a member of National Assembly, namely, Mir Mehran Khan Bijarani, a Parliamentary Secretary, got the order of transfer of the petitioner cancelled and said respondent was again posted at Guddu.
4. The petitioner has claimed that he was transferred only one month after his posting at Guddu due to political influence of respondent No,
3. He has prayed for the following reliefs:-- "(a) To declare that the orders dated 1-8-1996, and 9-9-1996, cancelling the orders of transfer of the respondent No, 3 whereby he was transferred as Executive Engineer, Thermal Power Station, Guddu and the petitioner was poste41 as Executive Engineer, Thermal Power Station, Guddu are under political influence, mala fide, ab initio void and without lawful authority stands cancelled.
(b) To direct that petitioner should not be transferred from Thermal Power Station, Guddu for three years except in public interest.
(c) To award the costs of the petition.
(d) Any other relief that the Court deems fit."
5. ' It is an admitted fact that, by virtue of section 17(1-B) of Pakistan Water and Power Development Act, 1958, service under Pakistan WAPDA Development Authority has been declared to be service of Pakistan. Said subsection is as follows:-- 17(1-B). Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the Authority from any Province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)."
6. ' Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have challenged the maintainability of this petition and submitted that, in view of above-quoted provisions, the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed before us that transfer is one of the terms and conditions of service. He, however, strenuously argued that the transfer of the petitioner is mala fide and is in violation of Notification No, 16/PS/SECY/(W&P), dated 31st August, 1994, issued by Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, whereby the Prime Minister had directed that the postings and transfers of the employees of WAPDA and KESC, shall be .On the basis of merits and public interest and not on any other consideration, and that transfers and postings before normal tenure of three years must be pre-cleared with the Prime Minister's Secretariat, giving full justification for the proposal.
7. ' Mr. M.A. Rashid and Mr. Manzar Alam learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 respectively, have cited the case reported as WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCM R 18 to contend that in view of above-quoted subsection (1-B), the Service Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the terms and conditions of WAPDA employees. In this reported case the question before the Supreme Court was that whether the Federal Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of an employee of WAPDA, whose services were terminated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1-A) of section 17 of the WAPDA Act.
8. ' Honourable Supreme Court, having taken into consideration the respective contentions raised by the parties, at page 27 of said judgment observed as follows:-- "It is clear from these provisions that the employment in the Authority was declared to be service of Pakistan and remedy provided under Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was made available to such employees by deeming them to be civil servants under that Act. The two explanations subsequently added and 'deemed always to have been so added' had the effect of bringing under purview of subsection (1-A) even the Provincial Civil Servants serving the authority under provisos to subsection (1). All employees, except those on deputation, were without qualification or limitation, declared to be civil servants for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act. All the terms and conditions of their service, be it statutory or contractual, was made the subject-matter of reference to Service Tribunal. Subsection (1-A) of the Act, as will be shown contained overriding terms and conditions of employment and provisions thereof could like any other terms and conditions of service be brought before the Service Tribunal for adjudication. Article 212(2) of the Constitution ousting the jurisdiction of all other Courts came into play and so did section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, abating all suits, appeals or applications regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal pending in any Court immediately before."
9. ' Supreme Court in the said judgment also held that Service Tribunal alone had the jurisdiction in case of terms and conditions of the WAPDA Employees.
10. ' Mr. Fattah Malik learned counsel for the petitioner cited the case reported as Zahid Akhtar v.
11. Government of Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530 wherein the role of bureaucracy in the administrative set- up was high-lighted and it was observed that Government servants repeated transfer from one place to another in a span of few months by the order of Minister concerned was highly unethical and undesirable. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner has been transferred due to political influence of the respondent No, 3, as such, said transfer order shall be struck down. In the above- cited case an employee of Government of Punjab Local Government and Rural Department LG and RD had challenged his transfer from Muzaffargarh before Lahore High Court, but his petition was dismissed as not maintainable in view of bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution.
12. Honourable Supreme Court in this case though pointed out the various illegalities committed by the Government Officers, but ultimately dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
13. In view of above, it is clear that the issue of transfer of the petitioner cannot be challenged in this petition and proper remedy for him is to approach the Service Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold that this petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine alongwith the pending application.