Dr. MAZHAR-UL-HAQ QURESHI vs Dr. YAQOOB BAIG MIRZA and 2 others
This matter originated from a writ petition filed in the Lahore High Court challenging the appointment of the petitioner, Dr. Mazhar-ul-Haq Qureshi, as Principal of de'Montmorency College of Dentistry, by the respondent, Dr. Yaqoob Baig Mirza, who claimed seniority. The High Court initially issued a status quo order, which it subsequently refused to vacate. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition due to the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, regarding service matters. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel offered not to press the appeal if the main writ petition pending before the High Court was decided expeditiously. The respondent's counsel did not oppose this. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the High Court to decide the pending writ petition by a specified date, while reserving the petitioner's right to approach the Supreme Court again should the High Court fail to meet this deadline.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a service matter in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court direct the High Court to decide a pending writ petition within a specific timeframe to avoid further litigation?
- Article 199(4), Constitution of 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 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, SG&AD 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 the 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 simil4r application was moved earlier by way of Civil Miscellaneous No, 3157 of 1995, which was dismissed 'y 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 Constitution 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.