Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 1567 1990 SLD 1567 1990 PLC 795
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Writ Petition No. 4215 of 1989, heard on 26th November, 1989.
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRV, CHAIN:AN
Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD AKBAR

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others

Law:

Section:

Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)-- ----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Transfer---Government servant has no vested right to serve at a particular place---Petitioner challenging his transfer order allegedly effected due to his taking active part in local politics---Petitioner had served at a station for more than three years before joining his new station of posting---Impugned order was passed by a competent Authority and there was neither any violation of law or rules--- Held, petitioner had no vested right to serve at a particular place and that too for an indefinite period and could not in circumstances invoke Constitutional jurisdiction--­Transfer order was not interfered with. JUDGMENT The relevant facts for the decision of the present Constitutional Petition are that the petitioner is a Naib-Qasid in Education Department. He was posted as such in the office of Deputy District Education Officer (M), Shakargarh and was transferred vide order dated 12-6-1989 to Government Middle School, Bhattian Dewan, Narowal. The petitioner has impugned this transfer order. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy District Education Officer was not competent to transfer the petitioner without prior approval of the District Education Officer. It is added that the respondent No. 2 has not exercised his powers independently rather order is mechanical and passed at the behest of the Education Minister. It is added that the transfer was against the policy of the Government and ban imposed. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that the transfer was effected by District Education Officer and not by Deputy District Education Officer, therefore, it did not require any approval. It is added that the respondent No. 3 made an application for his transfer on compassionate grounds as three of his family members died in quick succession, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the transfer. It is concluded…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492