Pakistan Case Law
1997 SCMR 167

Miss RUKHSANA IJAZ vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION, PUNJAB And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 SCMR 167
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 1684-L of 1996W.P. No. 8213/1996
Date1996-11-20
Judge(s)Fazal Ilahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan
Authored byZia Mahmood Mirza
ResultCase remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitutional petition challenging a transfer and posting order of two civil servants was admitted to regular hearing and an interim stay order was issued. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain a service dispute relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants in light of constitutional bars. The Supreme Court held that disputes concerning the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including transfers and postings, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court cannot issue interim stay orders or exercise jurisdiction in matters exclusively lying within the domain of the Service Tribunal without first determining its own jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the impugned stay order was set aside, and the High Court was directed to decide the question of its jurisdiction before passing any stay orders.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Does a dispute relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can the High Court issue a stay order in a service matter before deciding the question of its own jurisdiction?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212(2) of the Constitution
civil servanttransfer and postingjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalconstitutional petitionstay order

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Respondent No. 3 herein was posted as Assistant Education Officer (W), Markaz Narowal, when by order dated 6-2-1996, passed by the Director of Education (EE), Gujranwala Division, she was transferred and posted as SST/HM at Government Girls Middle School, Chandar-Ke-Rajpootan vice the petitioner who in turn was posted as Assistant Education Officer (W), Markaz Narowal. Respondent after approaching the higher authorities in the Education Department filed a Constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court to challenge the aforementioned order of her transfer on the ground, inter alia, that the present petitioner was not eligible to be posted as Assistant Education Officer by using the political influence of a Special Assistant to the Chief Minister. 'Learned Judge in the High Court vide order dated 3-7-1996 admitted the writ petition to regular hearing and suspended the operation of the impugned transfer order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court to seek leave to appeal against the stay order issued by the High Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are admittedly civil servants. Dispute between them relates to their transfer/posting which is a matter relatable to the terms and conditions of their service. Disputes about these matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded in such matters by virtue of the express provisions .Of Article 212(2) of the Constitution. It appears that the learned Judge in the High Court has not duly attended to this aspect of the matter before issuing the stay order. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow it.

The impugned stay order is set aside and it is directed that the High Court should first decide the question of its jurisdiction before passing any stay order.

Cited by 48 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.