MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
In this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the petitioner Doctor Muhammad Abdullah, Director, Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources, Regional Office, Bahawalpur, has sought cancellation of transfer order dated the 27th of July, 1992 passed by the Chairman, Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources, Islamabad, respondent No. 2 herein, shifting him to Quetta.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved that he has been transferred to another project of different and unrelated field of Research and Study at Quetta out of malice as sometime back the respondent No. 3 had asked to withdraw the civil suit which he had instituted against his department, claiming seniority and emoluments but he did not oblige him. The petitioner has maintained that he is engaged in study of Research of Growth of Kaller Grass, Wind erosion and Sand Dunes stabilization in Cholistan to meet the challenge of salinity. According to the petitioner, an undertaking was given to him that he shall not be transferred before the completion of research work to be concluded on the 30th of June, 1993. According to the petitioner his premature transfer is not in public interest and would also deprive him of the fruit of his labour, in depth research done in the desert which is his specialization.
3. The Chairman, Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (respondent No. 3) defended his order in the comments submitted in this Court, stating that Water Research Resources Centre, Quetta has been working without a Director and as a result only 30% of its objective could be achieved and for that reason, the posting of the petitioner at Quetta was felt imperative. He maintained that there was no post of Director in Water Research Centre at Bahawalpur whereas there is post of Director at Quetta and the other at Gilgit. The post at Gilgit has been filled and the vacancy at Quetta is to be filled up by the petitioner. He denied the allegation that transfer was made out of malice or mala fide. He also referred to terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner whereby he was bound to serve anywhere in Pakistan. He also assured the Court that the petitioner shall not be robbed of intellectual gains as he would be allowed to publicise his Research work in any journal of National or International level and further there is a competent staff to continue the project at Cholistan.
4. The reasons made out for the transfer are reasonable and do not appear to be tainted with malice or extraneous consideration.
5. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the case Raja Muhammad Afzal v. Secretary, Education, Government of the Punjab; Lahore and 2 others (1992 PLC (C.S.) 117), is not helpful to him in that what (was) laid down in the said ruling was that transfer of civil servant was mala fide when it was made not for professed purpose such as in normal course or it public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service, but for other purpose i.e. to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons.
6. In the instant case nobody has been accommodated in the petitioner's place. The person taking his place has been retained at Quetta and would work under the petitioner. Moreover, the transferring authority appears to have passed the order keeping in view the administrative interest.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to successfully impugned the transfer order on legal premises. Clause 6 of the letter of appointment (Exh. R.1) of the petitioner stipulates that headquarter of the petitioner shall be at Rawalpindi and he shall be liable to transfer anywhere in Pakistan. He was subsequently transferred to Bahawalpur which the petitioner had never objected on the promotion. The petitioner was served with Memorandum (Annexure II) dated the 23rd of December, 1992 mentioning his headquarter at Bahawapur but he could be required to serve anywhere in Pakistan. The petitioner admittedly had made no representation against it. In the circumstances, the petitioner should not grudge the present order and was legally or morally bound to obey the order of the P.C.R.W.R.
8. Even if the status of the petitioner was elevated to that of a Government servant for which the employees of Autonomous bodies are clamouring, still the Court would be slow in granting relief in a transfer matter. The case‑law on the subject is available in numerous decisions including Allah Rakha v. Government of the Punjab and another (1980 PLC (C.S.) 397, Syed Afzal Ahmad Hydari v. Secretary, Defence Production Division, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi (1991 SCMR 477) and Nazir Hussain, Ex‑Director, Excise and Taxation Administrator Auqaf, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar v. N.‑W.F.P. through the Chief Secretary/Secretary, Service & General Administration Department, Government of N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others (1992 SCMR 184.3). In Syed Afzal Ahmad Hydari's case no distinction was made between an employee under the Federal Government or the Provincial Government or a local Authority, or a Corporation so far as the matter of transfer was concerned.
9 ?? For reasons aforementioned, the petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
A.A./M‑1024/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.