MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs Ch. SAEED AHMAD and another

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---This petition is directed against judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby appeal of respondent No,1, Ch. Saeed Ahmad, against the petitioner., Mushtaq Ahmad, and respondent No,2, Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, was accepted and Ch. Saeed Ahmad was allowed to continue to serve as Executive Engineer, Sargodha Canal Division, Sargodha. Ch. Saeed Ahmad was posted at Sargodha in place of the petitioner who was transferred to Lahore as Under Secretary (Floods) in the Irrigation and Power Department. Subsequently, the transfer of Ch. Saeed Ahmad was cancelled and, therefore, he went in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal. As indicated above, his appeal was accepted. Hence this petition by Mushtaq Ahmad, for leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Tribunal.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Ch. Saeed Ahmad made use of political influence io get himself posted at Sargodha. On the other hand, the case of Ch. Saeed Ahmad was that the petitioner had exerted such influence for remaining at Sargodha. According to learned Tribunal, political influence was used by both the officers in the matter of their transfer.

3. It is for the authorities concerned to proceed or not to proceed against the said officers for approaching political figures with a view to getting a station of their own choice. As for the matter before us, it is noteworthy that the petitioner is at Sargodha for about 2-1/2 years and it is not disputed that the normal period of posting at that station is of three years. It is, however, not necessary that an officer should complete exactly three years before he can be transferred from a station. This period can be less or more than three years by few months or days. An officer can be transferred from a station much earlier for administrative reasons. In short, the question of transfer is within the discretion of the competent authorities and they are expected to exercise that discretion equitably keeping, of course, in view the normal period of posting as well as the exigencies of service.

4. Since, in the present case, the petitioner is about to complete the normal period of his posting at Sargodha, no legitimate exception can be taken to his impugned transfer from there. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant leave to him to appeal against the judgment under challenge.

5. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.