WAPDA vs Miss AM IRA NASREEN and another
This matter arises from civil petitions filed by WAPDA against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had set aside the transfer orders of two female teachers from Peshawar to Tarbella Dam and Mardan respectively. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of appeals before the Service Tribunal against departmental transfer orders and whether such transfers were made in the public interest. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly noted the lack of public interest in the transfers, particularly where the department intended to recruit contract teachers in place of the transferees and considering the personal circumstances of the respondents. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant leave under Article 212 of the Constitution, holding that no substantial question of law of public importance was involved. The key principle laid down is that while transfer is generally a departmental prerogative, transfers not made in the public interest and lacking bonafides are open to judicial scrutiny by the Service Tribunal.
- Whether departmental transfer orders of civil servants are subject to appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal under Article 212 against transfer orders lacking a question of law of public importance?
- Can the transfer of a civil servant be set aside if it is not made in the public interest?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos.118 and 119 of 2002 as questions of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. The respondents in both these petitions are female teachers who were posted at Peshawar from where Miss Amira Nasreen, respondent in Civil Petition No.118 of 2002 was transferred to Tarbella Dam whereas Mrs. Farah Akhtar, respondent in Civil Petition No.119 of 2002 to Mardan. They challenged their transfer orders by filing appeals before the Service Tribunal which have been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 19-4-2001 and their transfer orders set aside Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the prerogative of the petitioner-Department to transfer any of its employees from one station to another, therefore, the appeals before the Service Tribunal were not maintainable.
4. We have noticed that the Service Tribunal has taken note of the fact that after transfer of the respondents, the posts against which they were working, the petitioner-Department wanted to recruit two teachers on contract basis, therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the transfer of the respondents was not in the public interest. One of the respondents is unmarried and the husband of the other employed at Peshawar.
5. Apart from what has been stated above, under Article 212 of the Constitution, it is within the discretion of this Court to grant leave against the judgment of the Service Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we do not feel disposed to exercise discretion to grant leave.
Besides no question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is also involved.
6. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions have no merits which are hereby dismissed and leave refused.