JAM DAD KHAN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the High Court, whereby the operation of a transfer order of a civil servant from one sub-division to another was suspended in a constitutional petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition before the High Court regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order at this preliminary stage because the order was passed subject to notice, holding that the petitioner ought to approach the High Court by filing an application for the recall of the interim order and raising the jurisdictional objection there. The petition was accordingly dismissed with these observations.
- Does the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain matters relating to the transfer of a civil servant stand barred under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere at an interlocutory stage with an interim suspension order passed by the High Court subject to notice?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---By order dated 8th September, 1996 passed by the Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, Government of Punjab, petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer, (awaiting posting) was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, River Survey Sub-Division of Lahore Drainage Division, Lahore vice Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, SDO respondent No,3 herein who was directed to report to I & P Secretariat for further posting. Aggrieved of this transfer order, respondent No,3 challenged it in the High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction. A learned Judge of the High Court admitted the Constitutional petition to regular hearing and suspended the operation of the impugned transfer order subject to notice vide order dated 7-10-1996.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition for leave to appeal against the aforementioned order of the learned Judge in the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His contention is that the transfer of a civil servant is a matter relatable to the terms and conditions of service remedy for which lies in an appeal before the Service Tribunal and jurisdiction of all other Courts including the High Court to entertain such matters is barred by virtue Article 212 of the Constitution. Learned counsel has made a grievance that although the impugned interim order was passed subject to notice, case has not come up for hearing for the last five months. Be that as it may, since the impugned order of the High Court is only of interim nature and was subject to notice, petitioner should better move an application in the High Court for recall of the said order raising an objection therein to the jurisdiction of the High Court. In this view of the matter, we dc not find it a fit case for interference by this Court at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforenoted observation.