2011 P L C (C.S.) 863
[Quetta High Court]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
Dr. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS and anot her
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, HEALTH DEPARTMENT and another
Constitutional Petition No.131 of 2011, decided on 25th February, 2011.
Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974) ---
----S. 10 --Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199 ---Constitutional petition ---Transfer ---Petitioners
being aggrieved of order, whereby they were transferred from one place of working to
another contended that impugned orders had been made in violation of Rules and
Regulations, as well as in violation of decis ion of the Provincial Cabinet ---Section 10 of
Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 provided that every civil servant was liable to serve
anywhere within or outside the Province concerned, with exception that civil servant was
recruited specifically to serv e in a particular area or region ---Petitioners being civil servants,
during subsistence of their service, were liable to serve anywhere within or outside the
Province ---Petitioners were unable to establish that their case was covered by term `frequent
transfer and posting', they had also failed to show any mala fide on the part of concerned
authorities while making orders in their case ---Petitioners having failed to make out any case
in their favour, their petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Muham mad Usman Yousafzai for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. --- The petitioners being aggrieved of order dated 22 -1-
2011, whereby they have been transferred from District Quetta, while posted at District
Head quarter Hospital, Zhob, preferred instant petition with contention, that the order has
been made in violation of Rules and Regulations, as well as in violation of decision dated 17 -
2-2003 of the Provincial Cabinet, Government of Balochistan. It is their co ntention, that ban
has already been imposed on posting and transfer of officials as per directives of Chief
Minister Balochistan contained in dated 28 -9-2010, as such impugned order is also violative
of the same. Furthermore, they (petitioners) have not co mpleted the required two years period
of posting, at a station, while petitioner No.2 has already completed six years as periphery at
District Headquarter Hospital, Kohlu. It is further contended, that the order is made without
any legal justification, inc ompetently made, and unjustified, thus liable to be withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing the matter, mostly relied on the points
raised in the petition. The perusal of documents attached with the petition reveals, that
through n otification dated 22 -1-2011, the petitioners are transferred from Quetta to District
Headquarter Hospital, Zhob, the order questioned before this court. The petitioners have also
annexed decision taken by the Cabinet, thereby streamlining Transfer and Post ing Policy in
respect of Government servants, also annexed order dated: 28 -9-2010, whereby ban has been
imposed on posting and transfer of all grades in all Departments in the Province. The
petitioners further annexed copies of the appeals submitted by the m before Secretary,
Government of Balochistan, Health Department, Quetta against order of their transfer.
The petitioners are aggrieved of order, whereby they have been transferred and, posted from
Quetta to Zhob. As per section 10 of Civil Servant Act , 1974, every civil servant is liable to
serve anywhere within or outside the Province of Balochistan with exception that civil
servant is recruited specifically to serve in a particular area or region. In view of mentioned
provision of law, the petitioner s, being civil servants, and during subsistence of their service,
are liable to serve anywhere within, or outside the Province of Balochistan. No legal right
exists in view of the same, except provided thereunder. The petitioners, though relied on
Cabinet decision, whereby several measures were directed to be adopted by the concerned
authorities, while making orders for postings and transfers of their men in service. Though it
has been directed, as contained in dated 12 -3-2003, that frequent postings and tr ansfers
should be avoided, while reasonable tenure of posting at a station be fixed i.e. at least two
years. The petitioners based their claim on this clause. The petitioners in their petition
asserted that petitioner No.1 has been transferred to his prese nt post on 24 -12-2009, while
respondent No.2 has been posted on 10 -9-2009, as such they have not completed the period
of two years. The petitioners have not placed on record the mentioned orders. Both of them
have served on present post for a period of mor e than one year. Though, as per cabinet
decision as mentioned hereinabove two years period is considered as reasonable tenure, but
no hard and fast rule can be made in same respect. Each case is to be seen in its own merits
and circumstances. The petitione rs are unable to establish that their case is covered by term
frequent transfer and posting. They have also failed to show any mala fide on the part of
concerned Authorities/respondents while making orders in their case. In the circumstances
the petitioner s have failed to make out any case in their favour.
The petition, being merit less, thus liable to be dismissed, but as the appeals have already
been filed by the petitioners, which are still pending before the concerned Authorities, it will
be appropr iate to direct the concerned Authorities to decide the same, in accordance with law
in shortest possible time. This will meet the ends of justice.
H.B.T./12/Q Petit ion dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.