MUMTAZ ALI MIRZA, J.- Through the instant Constitutional petition, the petitioners seek to question the legality and the propriety of the Notification dated 21.5.1998, issued by the Board of Revenue Punjab whereby the petitioners have been relieved of their duties as Sub-Registrars (U-I) & (U-II), Rawalpindi with immediate effect and their services were directed to be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner Rawalpindi Division Rawalpindi for utilization in connection with the recovery of Provincial dues.
2. The petitioners are basically Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars appointed/recruited in terms of West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 made under Article 178 of the Constitution 1962, and that their other terms and conditions of service as Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars are governed by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules made thereunder. Although they were appointed as Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars, as aforesaid, yet by way of administrative arrangement they were appointed to act as Sub-Registrar (U- I) and Sub-Registrar (U-II) respectively at Rawalpindi. Pursuant to a policy decision of the Government, it was decided that the posts of Registrars/Sub- Registrars occupied by the Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars should be filled by, appointing Magistrates/'Extra Assistant Commissioners and all the Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars who were working as Sub-Registrars should be relieved of their duties and put on their original jobs of Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars, for which, they were recruited. The petitioners alongwith 11 other Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars instituted writ petition in this Court being W.P. 665 of 1998, wherein they sought to question legality of the aforesaid policy decision of the Government whereby they were sought to be removed from the posts of Sub-Registrars and reverted to their original positions as Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars. The said writ petition came up for final disposal before this Court on 15.5.1998 and after hearing the arguments from both sides was dismissed through a detailed order of the said date. After examining the entire legal position, it was held by the Court that the decision to relive the petitioners from their positions as Sub-Registrars and to revert them to their original positions as Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars was an executive decisions and fell exclusively within the domain of the Government and could not at all be questioned through the writ petition.
3. After the dismissal of the afore-stated writ petition, to which the petitioners were party, they have instituted the instant petition and have thereby questioned the legality of the Notification dated 21.5.1998 issued by the Board of Revenue of Punjab whereby the petitioners have been directed to be relieved of their duties as Sub-Registrar (U-K) & (U-II) Rawalpindi and their services have been placed at the disposal of the Commissioner Rawalpindi Division.
4. I have heard Mr. Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate in support of the instant Constitutional petition but do not feel persuaded to interfere in the matter for exactly- the same reasons as given by me in my order dated 15.5.1998 disposing of W.P. 665 of 1998. The petitioners being Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars are subject to the administrative control of the Board of Revenue of the Punjab and they cannot by dint of any reason or logic question the right of the said Board to pass the order impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner may have been working on these posts since the last many years but they cannot be said to have acquired a vested right to continue on the posts of Sub-Registrars (U-I) & (U-II) indefinitely and for all times to come. The Government has the right to deal with the Civil Servants in the manner deemed fit by it and to appoint them against any post which the Government considers appropriate for them. This right of the government cannot be controlled by the High Court. For, doing so would amount to interfering in the internal working of the Government departments. It is the Job of the government to run the Government and it is not for the Court to regulate its working or to supervise its day to day working. Our Constitution provides for separation of powers between the three organs of the Statute i.e. The Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Each organ is sovereign and independent in its on sphere. One organ has no right or jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of the other organ. If the argument of the petitioners is accepted, no Government shall be able to pass any order with respect to the posting and transfer of its employees. The position as to the impropriety of interference with the executive decision of the Government has been beautifully dealt with and explained in the case reported as PLD 1958 SC 437 (Tariq Transport Company Lahore v. Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service Sargodha and others). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported case very aptly apply to the situation in the instant case and are accordingly reproduced hereunder:- "The power of the High Court under Article 170, of the Constitution to issue directions, orders and writs is not limited to writs in the English form but extends to the making of orders restraining or directing any authority or Government which may be discharging executive functions under a statute. But this cannot be taken to mean that purely executive action can be controlled by the High Court. The Article is to be read in the context of the whole Constitution, the basic feature of which is a distribution of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Any encroachment by the High Court in the filed reserved for the executive would therefore amount to judicial invasion and would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. In the exercise of its writ jurisdiction the High Court can never substitute itself for, or assume the responsibility of the executive, for the simple reason that it does not have the requisite information, experience and training to discharge executive functions."
5. The petitioners being basically Revenue Officers are subject to the administrative control of the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 2 and the said Board has every right to make any order with regard to their posting and transfer from one place to another throughout the Province. The petitioners cannot question the right of the Board to do so. The instant Constitutional petition which seeks to question the said right is wholly misconceived and is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed as such in limine.