FIDA MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Local

' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Through instant writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, petitioner Fida Muhammad seeks annulment of Notiication dated 19-4-2005, regarding repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department before completion of his three years' deputation period. The grievance of the petitioner in essence is that the Notification in question is based on mala fides, violative of principle of natural justice and, therefore, without lawful authority and thus ineffective against the rights of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is an employee of Federal Government in BPS-18 in the office of Auditor General of Pakistan and was posted as Deputy Director Audit, N.-W.F.P. Prior to 2-12-2004. Respondent No.1 needed the services of a qualified officer for the post of Manager Finance for Community Infrastructure Project (CIP-II) in the Local Government and Rural Development Department and, therefore, sent a formal requisition to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 9-9-2004. The petitioner was selected and his services were placed at the disposal of respondent No.1 for posting him against the vacant post of Manager Finance (CIP-II) Peshawar. However, before completion of three years the impugned Notification dated 19-4-2005 was issued for the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department.

3. We have heard Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Akhtar Naveed, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State in the light of material on record.

4. The exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary and its exercise can be declined where the impugned order appears to have been made for valid reasons.

5. It is well-settled principle of law that a writ petition is only competent if the impugned order is either void, without jurisdiction or is nullity in the eyes of law. Mere irregularity, if any, on the other hand, in some respect relating to the impugned order, would not suffice to subject the said order to scrutiny in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199.

6. The requisitioning for services of Gul Sahib Khan respondent No.4 was made in the public interest and no mala fide intention is involved. The petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department by the competent authority and has not been deprived of his legal rights. There is no law that a deputationist should complete the tenure for which he has been deputed. It lies within the discretion of the competent authority to repatriate a deputationist as and when his services are required to the parent department/organization. The petitioner has been treated in accordance with his terms and conditions of appointment wherein it has been laid down that the petitioner shall serve anywhere in Pakistan and not supposed to work at the station of his choice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any such violation of rules or regulations, inviting interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.

7. In view of the above, we find that the impugned Notification has been issued for valid reasons and the petitioner has no bona fide cause of action. The writ petition having been found bereft of substance, is dismissed in limine.