Jaffar Mansoor Abbasi Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, ABBOTTABAD

BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 414-A/2026

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing...................11.03.2026..........................................

Petitioners (Jaffar Mansoor Abbasi) By Mr. Khalid Mehmood, Advocate.

Respondents (Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat Peshawar and others) by Sardar Basharat Additional Advocate General and Abdul Saboor Khan, Advocate.

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.- Through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner (Jaffar Mansoor Abbasi) has prayed as under: - “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition, the impugned speaking order of respondent No. 3 dated 24.02.2025 may be set aside being illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority besides being malafide and for ulterior motives.

And any other order deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.”

2.Precisely, the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner is a civil servant serving in the Education Department

of the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and is presently holding the post of Director (EMC) BPS-20 in the Directorate of Curriculum and Teacher Education (DCTE), Abbottabad, pursuant to notification dated 19.02.2025. According to the petitioner, the National Education Policy, 2009 envisaged bifurcation of the Education Department into two distinct streams, namely the Management Cadre and the Teaching Cadre, and consequently a separate Management Cadre service structure ranging from BPS-16 to BPS-20 was notified on 04.05.2009. The petitioner further asserts that a subsequent amendment enabling transfer of Teaching Cadre officers to Management Cadre posts was challenged before this Court in WP No.3663-P/2012 and was set aside vide judgment dated 08.05.2013. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite the said policy framework and judicial pronouncement, the respondents attempted to adjust Teaching Cadre officers against Management Cadre posts, whereupon the petitioner along with other officers instituted WP No.3452-P/2024, which is presently pending adjudication before this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner

was posted as Director C&TE and subsequently promoted to the post of Director (EMC) BPS-20 vide notification dated 19.02.2026. However, shortly thereafter, through speaking order dated 24.02.2026, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Director, Directorate of Professional Development (DPD), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which, according to the petitioner, is a Teaching Cadre post and has been assailed through the instant petition.

3.Arguments heard and gone through the record.

4.Upon careful examination of the pleadings, documents placed on record and the grounds urged in support of the petition, it appears that the controversy raised by the petitioner essentially pertains to his posting and transfer within the administrative structure of the Education Department of the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The petitioner, who is admittedly a civil servant serving in BPS-20 as Director in the Directorate of Curriculum and Teacher Education (DCTE), has called in question the speaking order dated 24.02.2026 whereby he has been transferred and posted as Director in the

Directorate of Professional Development (DPD).

The principal grievance of the petitioner is that such posting allegedly amounts to placement from the Management Cadre to a Teaching Cadre post in violation of the National Education Policy, 2009, the relevant service rules and certain earlier judicial pronouncements.

5.It may be observed that posting, transfer and adjustment of civil servants are ordinarily incidents of service and fall within the administrative domain of the competent authority.

It is a settled principle of law that a civil servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place or to hold a specific assignment unless such right flows from an express statutory provision.

The competent authorities are vested with discretion to regulate postings and transfers in accordance with service exigencies and public interest, and judicial interference in such matters is warranted only where the impugned action is shown to be without lawful authority, in violation of statutory rules, or tainted with mala fide of a high order supported by credible material.

6.In the present case, although the petitioner relies upon the alleged bifurcation of

Management Cadre and Teaching Cadre under the National Education Policy, 2009 and the relevant service rules, yet nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that the impugned order has been issued in violation of any mandatory statutory provision governing the petitioner’s service. The assertions made in the petition are largely based on policy considerations and the petitioner’s own interpretation of the service structure, which by themselves do not confer an enforceable legal right to challenge an administrative posting or transfer.

7.More importantly, the petition is hit by the constitutional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which provides for the establishment of Administrative Courts and Tribunals for adjudication of disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service of persons in the service of Pakistan. In pursuance thereof, Service Tribunals have been constituted and vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine such disputes. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that where the grievance of a civil servant relates to matters such

as appointment, promotion, posting, transfer, seniority or other terms and conditions of service, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution stands excluded and the aggrieved person must seek redress before the Service Tribunal constituted under the law. In the case of “Ali Azhar Baloch and others vs.

Province of Sindh and others” reported as 2015 SCMR 456), it was held by the apex Court that “Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, ousts the jurisdiction of High Courts and civil Courts in respect of the matters pertaining to terms and conditions of civil servants. In other words, the provisions of Article 212 do not confer a concurrent jurisdiction to Civil Courts, High Courts and Tribunals. The ouster contemplated under the said Article is a Constitutional command and, therefore, of necessity restricts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and High Courts on the subject, which squarely falls within the exclusive domain of Tribunal.” Similarly, in the case of “Chief Secretary Government of Punjab, Lahore and others Vs. Ms.

Shamim Usman” (2021 SCMR 1390), the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to caution the High Courts not to transgress the bar on its jurisdiction under Article 212 of the constitution, by holding;

“The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in respect of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant which could be adjudicated upon by the Service Tribunal. The High Court as a Constitutional Court should always be mindful of the jurisdictional exclusion contained under article 212 of the constitution. Any transgression of the such constitutional limitation would render the order of the High Court void and illegal.” In the case of “Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment v. M. Labib ur Rehman and others, (2021 SCMR 1554)”, the Supreme Court ruled:

“It is now established that any matter relating to terms and conditions of service is within the domain of administrative courts and tribunals established under Article 212 and even if the element of mala fides, ultra vires or coram non judice is pressed into, the same can be entertained and decided by the said courts in its jurisdiction. There is no denial to this fact that the bare reading of the said Article is of significant importance especially with reference to its exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to terms and conditions of service. Hence, in all eventualities any petition relating to terms and conditions of service is to be dealt with by administrative courts and tribunals specifically established for its adjudication in pursuance of Article 212 of the Constitution. As a general principle, the

framers of the Constitution while inserting the said provision have ousted the jurisdiction of other courts including the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. There are certain exceptions depending upon the facts and circumstances on case to case basis because of the reason that the law is not static and the same is growing day by day, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that in all eventualities the service issues cannot be called in question in Constitutional jurisdiction before the High Court. The Constitutional jurisdiction is always considered as extraordinary, which is to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances if so warranted, hence, the Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be curtailed stricto sensu leaving some room for its application where it is so demanding for safe administration of justice and fair play. The superior courts while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction must satisfy themselves that they may not interfere or infringe the jurisdiction of any other statutory forum in any manner when an equally efficacious/adequate remedy is available under the statute for the redressal of the grievances of the litigants. Hence, the superior courts should be reluctant to frustrate the statutory remedies while exercising their Constitutional jurisdiction, which otherwise has to be exercised sparingly while enabling to advance the legislative intent.”

Reference may also be made to the cases of “Peer Muhammad vs. Government of Baluchistan through Chief Secretary and others, (2007 SCMR 54) and Kalimullah Kakar and others v.

Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan and others, (2021 SCMR 1168)”. In a very recent judgment, in the case of “Muhammad

Hassanullah (OMG/B-18), Acting Additional Secretary, Health Department Balochistan V.

Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and another” (2025 SCMR 134), the apex Court has held that Article 212 of the Constitution, beginning with a non obstante clause, grants exclusive jurisdiction to administrative tribunals over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including transfers and disciplinary actions. This jurisdiction overrides that of High Courts under Article 199, even in cases alleging mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of fundamental rights. The Tribunals Act, 1974 provides a complete mechanism for redress of such grievances. Therefore, civil servants must approach service tribunals, not High Courts, for service-related disputes.

8.For the reasons recorded hereinabove this writ petition, being without any substance, is hereby dismissed in limine.

Announced

JUDGE

JUDGE

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Mudassar Ameer.

Shahid/*