MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI J.---This Intra-Court Appeal is directed .Against judgment darted 30-10-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by Dr. Naila Javeed appellant challenging the order of her transfer has been dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to this Intra-Court Appeal are that both Dr. Naila Javeed appellant and Dr. Sameena Younas respondent No. 3 are desirous to work as Medical Officer in the Women Jail, Multan. Some orders of transfer and cancellation of the same have been passed by the competent authority for and against the appellant as well as respondent No. 3. The last order in the matter has been passed on 2-7-1996 whereby Dr: Sameena Younas, Medical Officer, Women Jail, Multan has been allowed to continue at the said place of posting and the appellant Dr. Naila Javeed has been directed to report back to her parent Department. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on the command of the Supreme Court of Pakistan made in unreported judgment Ayaz Anjum v.
Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department and others (C.P.L.A. No. 1232 of 1996) (1997 PLC (C.S.) 123 wherein it has been held that the matters relating to the posting and transfer of a civil servant are to be taken up and decided by the appropriate Service Tribunal.
However, the appellant was allowed to move the Service Tribunal within a fortnight with effect from 30-10-1996 and it was directed that till then she shall not be disturbed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has mainly canvassed that the impugned order is against the policy of the Health Department and that the frequent orders of transfer passed in the matter justify the interference by this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
We are of the view that the dictum enunciated in C.P.L.A. No. 1232-L of 1996 has to be followed by this Court and it would be convenient to reproduce para. 2 of the same as under:-- "Clearly, the matters relating to the posting and transfer of a civil servant relate to the terms and conditions of his service. Disputes about these matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Service Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court is barred in these matters by the express provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution. We are therefore unable to support the interim order made by it in this case. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal and set aside the said order. The High Court should first determine the question of its jurisdiction before making any interim order in this case. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Sd.)
Saad Saood Jan, J.
Fazal Karim, J.
Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Lahore 24th April, 1996. "
4. In view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter we can safely express that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the bar contained in Article 212(2) of the Constitution and the matter falls within exclusive jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal.
5.We therefore, dismiss this Intra-Court Appeal in limine.
6. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant may be allowed a reasonable the to move the Punjab Service Tribunal and the impugned order may be stayed during the period to be allowed in the matter. We are of the view that this request cannot be granted in the light of our aforesaid view that this Court has no jurisdiction to dissect, analyse and determine the validity of the impugned order dated 2-7-1996. If a Court has no jurisdiction to hear a matter of the instant nature, no relief of any kind whatsoever can be granted. Hence we disallow this prayer.