WASEEM ALI TABISH and 4 others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through SecretaryGeneral, Administration and Information Department and 6 others

ORDER

' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---In this petition under Article 185 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan , 1973 leave is claimed against judgment dated 15-5-1998 whereby a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dismissed a Constitution Petition brought by five petitioners herein and 8 others with the following prayer-clause: "In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed for and on behalf of each and all of the petitioners that the impugned actions/orders of proposed invalid abolition of 28 posts held by the petitioners in their capacities as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars functioning as Registrars/Sub Registrars may graciously be set aside, reversed/modified/varied/struck down and/or be declared as null and void and without any legal effect on the rights of the petitioners. The respondents may also graciously be restrained from violating the Constitutional Punjab Rules of Business, 1974 and from violating the established departmental policy and from enforcing new policy without having been ingrained in the and order of 'status quo' may graciously be granted as an ad interim relief. The petitioners may also graciously be granted such other relief as may be deemed to be just and fair in the circumstances of the case along with costs."

2. The case of all the writ petitioners was that they are basically Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars appointed/recruited in terms of West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 made under Article 178 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962 and their other terms and Conditions of service as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars only, are governed by Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the Rules made thereunder. Since long times, many posts of Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars have been renamed and re-styled as that of Sub-Registrars to be held by the whole time Sub-Registrars appointed from Tehsildari Cadre by the Board of Revenue. Five such posts were created in 1983 and 23 in 1978. These 28 posts have always been and are still being held by the Tehsildars. In the wake of the separation of the Executive from the Judiciary at the level of Magistracy, the Chief Secretary Punjab was about to freshly appoint/absorb surplus Magistrate as Sub-Registrars in place of Tehsildars/NaibTehsildars. This can be culled out from a note dated 7-3-1998 the Chief Secretary read with Note dated 13-3-1998 of the Senior Member Board of Revenue Punjab and the endorsement of the Chief Secretary thereon, "At the cost of the Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars, by rendering them surplus instead of the Magistrates. "This threat of abolition of the posts was challenged as mala fide, unlawful and sans valid reasons.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and two Law Officers as also the learned counsel for respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi, the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court Rawaplindi Bench, dismissed in limine Petition No,665 of 1998 holding, among others, that the writ petitioners being admittedly Civil Servants they are subject to the administrative control of the Government and can be posted A against any post that the Government considers appropriate for them. The following excerpt from para.5 of the impugned judgment dated 15-5-1998 is being reproduced in that behalf: "....Running the affairs of the Government is the job of the Government and cannot be regulated, controlled or supervised by this Court. Doing so would be violative of the principle of separation of powers of the three organs of the State i.e, Judiciary, Executive and the Legislature. The decision impugned herein is an executive decision which as aforesaid lies within the domain of the executive and cannot be taken exception to by this Court nor can any fault be found therewith under any pretext whatever. If the submissions of the petitioners' learned counsel are accepted as correct, the result would be that the Government shall never be able to pass any order with respect to the petitioners in the matter of their day to day working. The position of law as to the non- interference by the Courts in the internal working of the Government departments is well-settled.

Reliance in this behalf is placed on PLD 1985 SC 437 (Tariq Transport Company Lahore. v.

Sargodha-Bahera Bus Service Sargodha and others)."

4. We have heard Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of this petition. He has argued that Notifications No,1845-83/1096 S.T-I and No,2343-87/2163-S.T(I) respectively issued by the Government of the Punjab in the Revenue Department and the Board of Revenue Punjab on 6-6-1983 and 23-7-1987, have not so far been rescinded/cancelled by the issuing authorities. For this reason, the petitioners (and others) could not be denied their right to continue to perform the functions of Registrars/Sub Registrars. According to him, during the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners (and other) have left the charge of the post/s as Registrars/Sub Registrars and that even such relinquishment of the charge/s by them respectively does not debar them from claiming reversal of the impugned judgment dated 15-5-1998.

5. We are afraid, the plea being raised totally misses the point that to successfully maintain a Constitution Petition by persons similarly placed as the petitioners they have to overcome the hurdle in their way of not having any vested right to ask for or stick to specific post/s in any discipline of the Government. The fact that a civil servant can be posted against any particular post by the Government had not been controverted before the learned Judge in Chambers and same is the position before us.

6. Viewed in this perspective, we are not inclined to the view that the petitioners have any right to continue to perform the functions of Registrars/Sub registrars by avoiding their repatriation to their parent department. No infirmity, much less a jurisdictional error, has been pointed out in the impugned judgment dated 15-5-1998.

7. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.