FAZAL AHMAD RANJHA and 28 others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

ORDER

No, RPM (DSD)4-17/07/10093. In pursuance of Government of the Punjab, Education Department's order No, SO(TRG)2 14/2008 dated 8th March 2008, the following teachers of district Kasur are hereby posted/placed as District Teacher Educator (DTE) at the Cluster Training and Support Centre (CTSC) mentioned against each with immediate effect.{{TABLE}} Sr. # Name of Teacher Desig. Scale Present place of posting Posted/Placed as DTE at CTSC {{TABLE}} a. The above DTEs are directed to report for duty to the head of District Training and Support Centre (DTSC), i,e, Govt. College for Elementary Teachers Kasur. b. Each DTE will be paid an amount of Rs,3000/- per month as special incentive pay and Rs,1500/- per month as mobility allowance in addition to the salary and allowances being drawn by him/her.

' SD/- ' PROGRAMME DIRECTOR"

14. From the contents of the afore-noted extract, it is crystal clear that the appellants were merely posted/placed as DTEs and no fresh appointment was made. Columns Nos.5 and 6 supra would clearly signify the intention of the competent authority as the same has been consciously passed keeping in view the present place of posting of the appellants and their subsequent placement/posting.

15. Keeping in view the aforenoted it is held that appellants are civil servants and were transferred/posted/placed as DTEs through different orders. Transfer/posting/placement is part of their terms and conditions of service. Therefore, in case they have been sent back/ transferred/ posted/repatriated, they cannot assert any right before this court in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. We are guided by the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Secretary to Government of the Punjab Health. Department, Lahore and others v. Dr.Abida Iqbal and another (2009 SCM R 61), Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others (2007 SCM R 54), Syed Mazher Hussain Bukhari v. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development, Department; Lahore and others (1998 SCM R 1948), Asadullah Rashid v. Haji Muhammad Muneer and others (1998 SCM R 2129) and Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v.

Government of Punjab and others (1998 SCM R 2280).

16. Apart from dealing with the question of transfer/posting of a civil servant, the Honourable Apex Court in the aforenoted judgments has dealt with the question that even if an order passed by a departmental authority qua terms and conditions of service of a civil servant is mala fide, coram non judice, ultra vires or without jurisdiction, this Court has no mandate to look into or decide about the vires of such an order.

17. While discussing the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution,- the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in unequivocal and clear terms that the bar is absolute in view of the fact that under the aforenoted Article, respective Service Tribunals have been constituted to adjudicate upon and decide exclusively about the matters and issues pertaining to terms and conditions of service of a civil servants. Therefore, resort to this court by invoking Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot be made. The words in which Article 212 of the Constitution is couched, gives it an overriding effect over the other Articles qua the terms and conditions of service, whereas the jurisdiction exercised under Article 199 being subject to the Constitution would be ousted insofar as the terms and conditions of services of a civil servant are concerned. Reliance can be placed on the judgments reported as "Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others (2015 SCM R 456) and National Assembly Secretariat v.

Manzoor Ahmed and another (2015 SCM R 253).

18. As regards the question of opportunity of hearing, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Gen. (R) Pervaz Musharaf v. Nadeem Ahmad (Advocate) and another (PLD 2014 SC 585 338) and Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 2010 SC 483) has held that an opportunity of hearing is not mandatory in each and every case.

Even otherwise, there is no concept of hearing while posting/transferring a civil servant from one place/post to another. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is also repelled.

19. The question of violation of fundamental rights will not vest this court with jurisdiction to adjudicate a question which pertains to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Reliance can be placed on I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (1991 SCM R 1041).

20. In view of the above appellants, who are civil servants and were merely transferred/posted/placed as DTEs with the CTSC for a limited period and subsequently transferred/posted/repatriated cannot assert a vested right against the said posts or before this court.

21. The upshot of the above discussion is that judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chambers does not require interference, therefore, the same is upheld. It is further held that in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan qua the enforcement of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, the writ petitions filed by the appellants were not maintainable. These Intra-Court Appeals being not maintainable and also devoid of any merit are dismissed.