' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, has been directed against an order passed by the Service Tribunal on 27-11-2000, whereby the stay order initially issued in favour of appellant herein was vacated.
2. The necessary fact, giving rise to the present appeal, briefly stated, are that in pursuance of an advertisement for the post of Subject Specialist B-17 the appellant herein appeared before the Public Service Commission and after test/interview she was appointed as Subject Specialist Government Girls Higher Secondary School Mandole vide notification dated 4-10-1999. It is alleged that respondents Nos.1 and 2 in colourable exercise of their jurisdiction and utter disregard of relevant law, after the completion of only seven months and fourteen days transferred the appellant from Girls Higher Secondary School Mandole to Girls Higher Secondary School Kharal Abasian and appointed by transfer Rukhsana Tahira, respondent No,3 herein, vide notification dated 8-5-2000. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid notification, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 6-6-2000. Alongwith the appeal the appellant herein moved an application for grant of ad interim injunction upon which status quo order was initially granted subject to objections from the opposite side and after obtaining the objections and hearing the parties, the learned Service Tribunal vacated the status quo order on 27-11-2000. It is the aforesaid order of the Service Tribunal which is the subject of present appeal.
3. In support of appeal it was vehemently contended by Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned order passed by the Service Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the ground that the appellant completed only a period of seven months and fourteen days service in Government Girls Higher Secondary School Mandole and thereafter she was transferred to Kharal Abbasian without assigning any reason ignoring the Government policy which was clearly laid down in Government notification dated 13-8-1999, in view of which the appellant could not be transferred before completing ten years period as stipulated in the said Government policy. The learned counsel contended that the appellant is continuously performing her duties in Government Girls Higher Secondary School Mandole as is apparent from the attestation of the concerned Principal dated 27-1-2000. The learned counsel pressed into service the submission that the Service Tribunal failed to take note of the rule of law laid down by this Court in unreported cases titled Mst. Bibi Zaitoon v. Director Education Schools and others (Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,24 of 1999 decided on 2-3-1991) and Mst. Nasreen Khawaja v. Mst. Kausar Parveen (Civil Appeal No,69 of 2000 decided on 10-10-2001. According to the learned counsel it was erroneously observed by the Service Tribunal that respondent No,3 was entitled to transfer on the basis of merit as she topped the list. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has a good prima facie case and balance of convenience also titles in her favour. The impugned order, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was made under the political pressure and against the public interest.
4. In reply Sardar Rafique Mehmood Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No,3, strenuously contended that respondent No,3 at the time of test and interview topped the merit list but she has not been adjusted so far. It was further contended by the learned counsel that in the first instance respondent No,3 was appointed at the place where no post was existing and even uptil now she has not been adjusted anywhere. Therefore, the learned counsel vehemently urged that the Government should be directed to adopt a uniform policy in the matter of transfer of civil servants
5. Raja Shiraz Kayani, the learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2, also supported the contentions of Sardar Rafique Mehmood Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No,3.
6. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be stated that the appeal tiled by the appellant against her transfer order is still pending before the Service Tribunal and the same has not been finally decided so far. At this stage it would not be appropriate to go into the detailed merits of the case of the parties as the same is likely to adversely affect the interests of one party or the other. However, the fact remains that the appellant was appointed as Subject Specialist Government Girls Higher Secondary School Mandole on 4-10-1999. Within a short span of seven months and fourteen days she was transferred from Girls Higher Secondary School.
Mandole to Girls Higher Secondary School KharalAbbasian and in her place respondent No,3 was appointed without assigning any reason. It is indeed correct that it is the prerogative of the Government to transfer any civil servant from one place to another but at the same time it is desirable that the Government and the concerned department should also take into consideration a uniform policy for all the Government employees irrespective of their political background. Since the transfer order of the appellant is sub judice before the Service Tribunal; therefore, we refreain from making any comments on the validity of the transfer order. However, it is not denied that the appellant is still performing her duties at Government Higher Secondary School Mandole according to the attestation of the concerned Principal dated 27-1-2000. It would, therefore, not be proper to disturb the appellant from the place where she is performing her functions.'
7. Thus, keeping in view the principles particularly the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, we are inclined to accept the appeal. Hence we set aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal, whereby the stay order initially issued in favour of appellant was cancelled and direct that status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of appeal by the Service Tribunal. Our aforesaid view stands fortified by unreported cases of this Court titled Mst. Bibi Zaitoon v. Director Education Schools and others (Civil P.L.A. No,24 of 1999, decided on 2-3-1999) and Mst. Nasreen Khawaja v. Mst. Kausar Parveen (Civil Appeal No,69 of 2000 decided on 10-10-2000). In the circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to costs.
' Before parting with this order; keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case. We direct the Education Department that Rukhsana Tahira, respondent No,3. Should also be adjusted by posting her at some appropriate station.