FAIZ AHMED vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others

ORDER

' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order dated 5-6- 1996 upon respondent No, 2's Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1996 in Writ Petition No, 6552 of 1996, filed by respondent No, 2 against the order of his transfer, suspending the impugned transfer order without examining the question, as to whether the writ petition was hit by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution.

2. A learned Judge of this Court on 18-6-1996 passed the following Chamber order:-- "The interim order made by the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1996 is suspended till the High Court first determines whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in view of the bar contained in clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition should be listed in Court at an early date."

3. We have heard Sh. Naveed Shehryar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has invited our attention to a judgment dated 19-11-1996 passed in Civil Petition No, 2105-L of 1996, whereby the aforesaid petition was converted into an appeal and the same was disposed of in the following terms:-- "Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the petitioner and respondent No, 1 being civil servants, matter relating to their transfer/posting falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the jurisdiction of all other Courts including the High Courts in such matters is expressly barred by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been attended to by the learned Judge in the High Court when passing the interim stay order impugned herein. That being so, we convert this petition into an appeal and set aside the impugned stay order issued by the High Court and direct that the High Court should first determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any interim order in this case. This appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs."

4. On the other hand, respondent No, 2 who has appeared in person, has urged that in spite of the fact that the writ petition has come up for hearing before the High Court several times, but the same has not been disposed of.

5. In our view, it will be just and proper to dispose of the above writ petition in terms of the above Chamber order dated 18-6-1996. We accordingly convert thee. Above petition into an appeal and dispose of the same in the above terms with the observation that the High Court may expedite the disposal of the writ petition as was observed in the Chamber order.