1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. MAZHAR‑UL‑HAQ QURESHI Versus Dr. YAQOOB BAIG MIRZA, PROFESSOR OF ORAL SURQERY/MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. MAZHAR‑UL‑HAQ QURESHI Versus Dr. YAQOOB BAIG MIRZA, PROFESSOR OF ORAL SURQERY/MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, LAHORE and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. MAZHAR‑UL‑HAQ QURESHI Versus Dr. YAQOOB BAIG MIRZA, PROFESSOR OF ORAL SURQERY/MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith M'. Salim Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Dr. Danishwar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents/Caveators.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the learned High Court dated 5‑11‑1995 passed in W.P. No. 4050 of 1995). Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199, 212 & 185(3)‑‑ Appointu4ent to specified post‑‑‑Respondent being senior most in hierarchy of service and holding charge of post in question, was granted status quo by High Court when petitioner was appointed to that post by Government‑‑ Petitioner twice moved High Court for vacation of status quo order but to no effect‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's main thrust against grant of status quo order was that High Court was not competent to entertain Constitutional petition and give interim relief to respondent in view of bar of Art. 212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Petitioner, however, stated that if main petition already pending before High Court was decided expeditiously, he would not press his petition for leave to appeal‑‑Respondent did not oppose such statement‑‑ Question of jurisdiction having been raised in Constitutional petition, High Court was directed to decide the same on or before specified date‑‑‑Both parties were directed to appear before High Court on specified date‑‑‑If matter was not decided within specified date, petitioner would be within his right to resurrect his case before Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
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. A.A.IM‑3317/S Order accordingly.