Petitioner apparently aggrieved by the order of his transfer dated 10th July, 1996, called in question the same through this Constitutional petition on the ground that the same was procured under the influence of the Minister, who is nobody in the Scheme of law.
2. This Court, vide order dated 16-7-1996, called for report and in the meanwhile suspended the operation of the order dated 10-7-1996. Subsequently respondent No.3 filed C.M. 3/96 for fixation of the case and re-call of the order of suspension dated 16-7-1996. Apparently, since the matter was not being heard/listed in this Court, respondent No.3 filed C.P.L.A. No. 1705-L of 1996, and also applied for interim injunction. Vide order dated 13-8-1996, the Supreme Court has asked this Court to hear L.M.3/96 on 20th August 1996 i.e. Today. Accordingly, the C.M. As well as the main petition has been heard and is disposed of.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bar of Article 212(2) of the Constitution does not apply in this case as the impugned order has been procured under the influence of the Minister. Reliance for this purpose is placed on Annexure-A. This contention may be having some force in law but the real question before me is as to who should decide this question.
The Constitution envisages the resolution of disputes pertaining to terms and conditions of civil servants by a Tribunal created under Article 212 and not by this Court. The constitutional intent has to be accepted and enforced. The grounds of mala fides, coram non judice, jurisdictional errors, illegalities and irregularities are all grounds which can be urged before the Service Tribunal. I find no force m the submission of the learned counsel that merely because the order has been procured by influence of a Minister, this Court should bypass Article 212 and exercise the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. In this connection I respectfully rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 24-4-1996, passed inC. P.L.A. No.1232-L of 1996.
4. For the reasons noted above, this petition is dismissed. If so advised, the petitioner may approach the relevant forum for vindication of his-rights.