ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

       C.P.    No.343   of   2009.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

                                                1. For Katcha Peshi.

                                                2. For Hearing of M.A.No.775/09

19.11.2009.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro, advocate for petitioner.

                        Mr. Roshan Ali Solangi advocate for respondent No.1.

                        Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo, Standing Counsel.

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-

                        In this case the petitioner being a public servant has challenged his transfer from one place to another place on the ground that the same is malafide and that in terms of Esta code  of Chapter-III, the public servant cannot be transferred before the period of three years and he has referred instructions/letters issued to various authority by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Karachi and according to which that the employee may be allowed to remain and stay for two years and he should not be transferred before that.

             Learned Standing Counsel and  learned counsel appearing for respondents have contended that the transfer, promotion are terms and conditions of service, therefore, under Article 212 of Constitution of Pakistan, the same can be challenged before the competent Service Tribunal having jurisdiction. Learned Standing Counsel has relied on the case of Secretary Education, NWFP versus Mustamir Khan, wherein the employee of government had  challenged his transfer before the competent authority i.e. Service Tribunal and thereafter the matter has gone in appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the Civil Servant had no legal right to remain posted at particular place and if order is malafide even then it can only be challenged before the Service Tribunal having jurisdiction.

                        In view of the above position, we are of the considered view that this petition is misconceived and not maintainable. Consequently the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Judge