KHALID PAUL KHAWAJA, J.- In this writ petition Syed Roomi Hassan Shah, petitioner, who is serving as Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue Department, Punjab has voiced his grievance against his frequent transfers under political influence.
2. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of a government servant related to the terms and conditions of his service and therefore under Article 212 of the Constitution no writ was competent, he submitted that the transfer of government servant did not relate to the terms and conditions of his service and that the writ petition was competent because the transfer orders were tainted with mala fides and such orders could be brought under challenge through a constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and has controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a government servant. It is now well established that the transfer of a government servant relates to the terms and conditions of his service. In this connection reliance is placed on Nazir Hussain (Ex-Director Excise and Taxation), Administrative Auqaf NWFP, Peshawar v.
N.W.F.P through the Chief Secretary /Secretary, Services & General Administration Department, Government of N.W.F.P, Peshawar, etc. (1992 SCM R 1843), Allah Rakha v. Government of the Punjab 1980 PLC (C. S) 397 ), Syed Afzal Ahmad Hydari v. Secretary, Defence Production Division, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi (1991 SCM R 477). Muhammad Yousuf v. Deputy Education Officer (1994 PLC (C.
S) 704), Zulfiqar Ali, Patwari Vss Government of the Punjab through the Secretary Board of Revenue and 2 others (1995 PLC (C. S) 554) and Munshi Muhammad Azam v. A. C, etc. PLJ 1996, Lah. I6, D. B)
Thus, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that transfer of a government servant did not relate to the terms and conditions of this service.
5. As regards the second contention it has been laid down in Rana Muhammad Sarwar v.
Government of Punjab through Services, General Administration and Information Department and another (1990 SCM R 999) that even a %*.Ala fide order relating to the terms and conditions of the service of government servant could be challenged before a tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court ousted.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1995 SC 530) to urge that since frequent transfers has been deprecated by the Supreme Court the High Court 'should entertain writ petition and make an appropriate order to redress the petitioner's grievance. It is true that in the aforesaid case the honourable Supreme Court has deprecated the frequent transferees of government Servants in violation of the policy directives of the Government.
The Supreme Court observed: "We, therefore, expect that the guidelines mentioned in the policy directives of the Government referred to above and the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of Business, ibid, will be kept in view by all concerned while dealing with the transfers of Government Servants.-i The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Government of Punjab for circulating it to all its departments for further guidance- with these observations this petition stands dismissed as not maintainable".
7. It is thus abundantly clear that the petition of Zahid Akhtar against his transfer was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The fact therefore, remains that the present petition is not maintainable and is dismissed with no order as to costs.