Dr. MAZHAR-UL-HAQ QURESHI vs Dr. YAQOOB BAIG MIRZA, PROFESSOR OF ORAL SURGERY_MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, LAHORE and 2 others
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against interim orders passed by the Lahore High Court in a service dispute. The respondent, claiming seniority as a Professor of Dentistry, challenged the government's decision to appoint the petitioner as Principal of de'Montmorency College of Dentistry. The High Court initially granted a status quo order and subsequently dismissed an application to vacate that order, treating it as a repetition of a previously dismissed application. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the High Court's jurisdiction, citing the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, regarding service matters. The Supreme Court did not adjudicate the jurisdictional question on its merits but instead disposed of the petition by consent of the parties. The Court directed the High Court to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously by a specified date, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Supreme Court again if the matter remained unresolved within that timeframe. The judgment emphasizes the necessity for timely resolution of service-related constitutional petitions.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding service matters in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can a court direct the expeditious disposal of a pending writ petition as a means to resolve a challenge to interim relief?
- Article 199(4), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Order XXXIX Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 212, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 3rd of April, 1995, in Writ .Petition No, 4050 of 1995 having been moved by Dr. Yaqoob Baig Mirza, the respondent No, 1, following interim order was passed by the Lahore High Court:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being the senior-most Professor of Dentistry in the Province of Punjab qualifies for a regular appointment as the Principal of de'montmorency College of Dentistry at Lahore and that at any rate he has been holding the said office since the 19th of April, 1994 and, therefore, the action/decision of the Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Services, SGA&I Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore (respondent No, 1) and the Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, Lahore (respondent No, 2) to appoint Mr. Mazhar-ul-Haq Qureshi, Head of Dental Section of Nishter Medical College, Multan (respondent No, 3) in suppression of the petitioner is against the principle of seniority and fitness.
2. Call for a report and parawise comments from respondents Nos. 1 and 2, so as to reach this Court within a month.
3. Status quo shall be maintained meantime.
4. A copy of this order may be given dasti on payment of usual charges." .
' An application under Article 199(4) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Order XXXIX, Rule 4 and section 151, C.P.C. Was instituted by the petitioner for vacation of the aforesaid order. On the application, learned High Court passed another order which is as follows:-- "This is an application for vacation of the status quo order issued by me vide my order dated 3-4- 1995. A similar application was moved earlier by way of C.M. No, 3157 of 1995, which was dismissed by me vide my order dated 24-8-1995. The present application is in pith and substance a repetition of the earlier application and is, therefore, also dismissed."
' This petition seeking leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders has been filed.
Learned counsel has submitted that learned High Court was not competent to entertain the Constitutional petition and give the interim relief to the respondent in view of bar of Article 212 of the Constitution. He, however, states that if the main petition already pending before the High Court is decided expeditiously, he would not press this petition.
' Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose this statement. This being the position, question of jurisdiction having been raised by the petitioner, the writ petition be decided by the High Court on or before 20th of December, 1995. Both the parties shall appear before the High Court on 14th of December, 1995. If the matter is not decided within the specified period, the petitioner shall be within his right to resurrect his case before this Court. This order shall immediately be sent to the High Court. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of.