SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others vs Mst. NASIM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent to her position as District Education Officer. The respondent, a senior educator, challenged her transfer and the subsequent placement of her services at the disposal of the Director of Education, arguing it was arbitrary and contrary to government policy regarding female employees. The core legal question was whether the transfer order, issued without assigned reasons and violating the principle of normal tenure, was legally sustainable or arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that while a civil servant has no vested right to a particular post, the arbitrary removal of a civil servant from a post before the completion of their normal tenure, without valid reasons, constitutes an improper exercise of authority. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that administrative transfers must not be arbitrary and that the Service Tribunal is justified in intervening when departmental orders lack transparency or justification, particularly when they deviate from established norms of service tenure.
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to hold a particular post?
- Can a transfer order be set aside if it is issued without assigning reasons and deviates from normal tenure?
- Is the Service Tribunal justified in interfering with departmental transfer orders that appear arbitrary?
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The respondent was appointed Senior English Teacher in Education Department on 29-9-1962 and was subsequently promoted as a Headmistress and a Senior Headmistress. On 16-8-1993, the respondent was appointed as District Education Officer and posted at Sargodha which was her home town. However, subsequently, on 10-8-1994, the respondent's services were placed by competent authority at the disposal of Director Educatioh (SE), Sargodha, petitioner No,4 in this petition. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No,10049 of 1994 before the Lahore High Court, at Lahore and the petition was disposed of with remarks that the respondent would make a representation before petitioner No, 1 .
Thereafter, the respondent's services remained at the disposal of petitioner No,4 from 16-8-1994 to 30-11-1994, but subsequently the respondent was posted as Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Chak No,107/NB, vide order dated 1-12-1994, which was pursuant to order passed by petitioner No,.1 dated 8-12-1994. The representation made by the respondent to the said petitioner was also rejected by him vide order dated 6-12-1994.
2. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the said order filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was allowed and the respondent was ordered to be reposted as District Education Officer (W.EE) at Sargodha, with immediate effect.
3. The tribunal after examination of a number of cases came to a conclusion that ladies holding administrative posts had generally been posted in the Districts of their domicile. It, therefore, found that the respondent who was at the fag end of her career should have been posted according to her convenience, which would have been more in consonance with the Government policy governing female employees.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before us has been that no civil servant can claim a vested right in particular post and since the respondent was transferred to a place nearest to her residence and the said transfer was ordered by the competent Authority in public interest and no mala fides were involved, the Service Tribunal was not justified in upturning the order dated 10-8-1984. The petition was resisted by the respondent who argued her own case before us.
5. A perusal of the order dated 10-8-1994, which had' been impugned before the Service Tribunal, indicates that no reasons for placing the respondent's services at the disposal of Director of Education (SE), Sargodha for further posting had been assigned. There is no controversy in regard to the fact that a civil servant is generally permitted to complete his normal tenure in case of transfer from one place to another. The respondent had earlier been posted as District Education Officer vide order dated 29-7-1993, therefore, the uprooting of the respondent from such post vide order dated 10-8-1994, was a deviation from such normal procedure for which even reasons were not assigned. The order dated 10-8-1994, therefore, smacks of arbitrariness. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has also assailed the Tribunal's order as amounting to interference in the internal management of the Education Department and hindrance in its work, but we are of the view that the Tribunal has acted justly and properly under the circumstances of the case and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mian Arif Said vs Province of Punjab etc 2023 LHC 4015, 2024 PLJ Lahore 109, 2024 PCRLJ 1037
- BASHIR AHMED & others vs STATE 2018 PLJ FSC 39