JUDGMENT IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J. - The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for a declaration that the Notification dated 13.4.1996 is ultra vires of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder. The same has not been framed in accordance with the procedure. Directorate of Floriculture, Training and Research Punjab is not entitled to function as separate functional unit of Agriculture Department and that respondent No. 4 is not entitled to claim seniority. The relevant facts are that the Governor of the Punjab made the new rules of Floriculture (Training & Research), Punjab, Lahore Service Rules; 1996 which were published in the notification dated 13.4.1996. The petitioner has challenged the same. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Directorate of Floriculture was carved with a view to give benefit to respondent No. 4. It is added that the Agriculture Department consisted of Research and Extension Wings and a large number of Horticulturists are employed in both the wings. It was added that Horticulture includes Floriculture, which now was being treated as separate department or Functioning Unit. The learned counsel with reference to the course of the Agriculture University submitted that the Floriculture as such did not exist, therefore, there was no independent Post Graduate Course for the same. It was added that respondent No. 4 is junior to many of the officials working as Horticulturists in the Agriculture Department and by creating the Directorate of Floriculture Training and Research Punjab as independent Wing, the purpose was to promote him at the cost of others.
3. On the other had, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 argued that the rules cannot be challenged through a writ petition as the same were part and parcel of the terms and conditions.
The Constitutional petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner if and when aggrieved could maintain an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had the jurisdiction to. Decide the vires of the rules, also. It was added that the writ petition otherwise is not competent. It was explained that the petitioner has alleged as question of facts, which can be decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal. In this behalf reliance was placed on the cases of I.A. Sharwani and others. v. Go\n. Of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SGMR 1041), Rana Muhammad Sardar v. Govt, of Punjab through S.G.A. & I. Department and another (1990 SCMR 999), Abdul Qaddus and others v. Govt. Of Punjab and 266 others (1991 PLC (CS) 471), Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Govt, of the Punjab through Secretary L.G. & R.D. Department and 266 others (1993 PLC (CS) 354) and Shamim Mustafa Ansari and 170 others v. Govt, of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 140). It is argued that mala i.e was again question of fact, therefore, can be adjudicated upon by the Service Tribunal. In this behalf reliance was placed on the cases of Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Govt, of Punjab and others (1998 SCMR 2280) and syed Mazhar Hussain Bolhari v. Secretary Govt. Of Punjab L.G. & R.D. Department, Lahore and others (1998 SCMR 1948). It was added that even otherwise the allegations of mala fide levelled in this petition were too general, unspecific and vague, so does not furnish basis for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction. In this behalf reliance was placed on the case of The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Govt, of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1974 SC 151). It was added that the Governor enjoyed unfettered powers to frame service rules and no interference was possible, so long the rules were not violative of any provision of the Constitution or the parent enactment. The learned counsel relied upon the cases of Musharraf Ali v.
The Province of Punjab and others (1981 PLC (CS) 29), Naimat Ullah Bun and others v. The Government of the Punjab through the Secretary Education, Lahore (1988 SCMR 1453), Falak Sher Khan and another v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others (PLD 1989 SC 262), Ch. Muhammad Insha Ullah and others v. Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E) Punjab and others (PLD 1988 SC 155) and Dr. Mrs. Shahbaz Akhtar, Associate Professor v. Govt, of N.W.F.P, through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others (1998 SCMR 2254) in support of his contention. It was added that the petitioner had not suffered any legal injury and none of his existing terms and conditions of service had been adversely affected by these rules, therefore, he was not an aggrieved person. It was added that the future chances of promotion were not guaranteed, therefore, the petitioner had not a vested right which he sought to be enforced through this Constitutional petition. In this behalf reliance was placed on the cases of Falak Sher Khan and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others (PLD 1989 SC 262), Govt, of N.W.F.P., Health & Social Welfare Department v. Dr. Sh. Muzaffar Iqbal and Others (1990 SCMR 1524) and Muhammad Arshad Saeed, DIG Police v. Govt, of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Div., Islamabad and 29 others (1994 SCMR 1033). It was argued that the petitioner was fully conscious of the legal position that he cannot maintain petition, therefore, he has not claimed any relief for himself in the writ petition. It was added that the writ petition was not competent in view of the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of 1973. It was argued that the Government proceeded to appoint Director of Agriculture, Floriculture and Land Capping at Lahore in the year, 1987. This was under the administrative control of Director General Extension, Lahore while Director of Horticulture, Floriculture and Land.Capping, Rawalpindi was established in 1989.
This office was under the administrative control of the Director General Research. The respondent No. 4 was posted as Director in Rawalpindi office in the year, 1990. It was explained that on 25.3.1992 Director, Lahore was placed under the . Administrative control of Additional Secretary Agriculture instead of Director General (Extension), Lahore while the Director Rawalpindi was placed under the administrative control of Additional Secretary on 12.5.1992. Thereafter on 26.5.1995 it was decided that the Director Agriculture, Floriculture and Land Capping Lahore would work as Coordinator for Director of Horticulture and for Floriculture and Land Capping Rawalpindi. It was on 1.7.1992 that both the offices were merged. The result was that the posts of Director Horticulture and Floriculture, Rawalpindi and Land Capping Rawalpindi were abolished while the post of Director Agriculture for Floriculture and Land Capping Lahore was re-designated as Director Floriculture and Training Research Punjab, Lahore. This necessitated framing of the rules challenged by the petitioner. It was argued that the rales were framed tor all times to come and for every one as was clear, from the context of the rules. It was argued that the petitioner when aggrieved from any order passed under these rules may challenge the said order or action and also rules.
4. Rana Muhammad Arif, learned Addl. A.G. Argued that the establishment of offices of Director of Agriculture, Floriculture and Land Capping, Lahore in 1987 and then Director of Horticulture for Floriculture and Land Capping, Rawalpindi in 1998, was a policy decision. Similarly their merger and establishment of Director, Floriculture, Training and Research Punjab, Lahore was also a policy decision. The same cannot be challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The office of Director Floriculture, Training and Research Punjab, Lahore, having been established, therefore, framing of rules was necessary. It neither effected existing terms and conditions of the petitioner or anyone else nor their seniority in any manner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The post of Director Floriculture at Lahore was created in 1987 while the Rawalpindi post was created in 1989.
Both were merged on 1.7.1992. Now the Government has framed rules. The petitioner neither challenged the creating of the post of Director at Lahore nor Rawalpindi rather had no locus standi to object to the same, therefore, for this simple reason he was neither an aggrieved person nor had any locus standi to challenge the Service Rules, 1996. There was nothing common between the petitioner and respondent No. 4.
6. Now coming to the petitioner's arguments on merits. It was vehemently argued that the rules as framed would benefit only respondent No. 4. The rules were not transitory temporary but the same were permanent and enacted for all times to come and applied to all incumbents. If looked from this angle the rules were legal and notified by the competent authority, therefore, no valid exception could be taken to the same.
7. Now coming to the preliminary objection that the writ was not competent and the petitioner should invoke the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal, as and when an adverse order was made, which was competent to decide the question of vires of the rules, also. Learned counsel in this behalf has rightly referred to the judgment in the case of I. A. Sherwani and others (supra). The anxiety of the petitioner to challenge the rules became clear from the fact that he had not suffered any legal injury as none of his terms and conditions of service had been adversely affected, therefore, he could not maintain the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. He lost sight of the fact that if he had no locus standi to challenge the rules through an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal then how he could maintain this petition? The allegations of mala i.e are too general, unspecific and are made as per fashion. The learned counsel has rightly referred to the judgment of The Federation of Pakistan through The Secretary, Establishment Division, Govt, of Pakistan, Rawalpindi (supra).
8. There is nothing on record even to drop a hint as to the rule having been framed with mala i.e purpose. The same clearly seemed to have been made in order to cover the appointment to the post, which had come into existence as a result of re-organization. The Governor enjoyed unfettered powers to frame service rules and this Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matters of policy. Learned counsel has rightly referred to the judgments in the cases of Musharraf AH and Dr. Mrs. Shahbaz Akhtar (supra).
9. The Floriculture is a vast subject. It is high time to recognise its importance and start Graduate and Post Graduate classes in the Agriculture University. It is needless to and here that the same has been recognized in United States and elsewhere long back as an independent subject. It consists of about 10 Courses for M.Sc. (Hon). Let copy of the judgment to be sent to the Secretary, Agriculture, Government of the Punjab and Vice- Chancellor, Agriculture University, Faisalabad for consideration and necessary action.
10. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.