1. ORDER Muhammad Daud Khan (Chairman) --In this appeal against extension of probationary period and contemplated reversion to his parent Department, an application for maintenance of status quo has been filed by the appellant who is at present employed as Principal, Cantonment Public School, Murree. Many fine points of law, like applicability of Order XXXIX, rule 1 to appeals; enlargement of scope of Order XL1, rule 5, C. P. C. to stay proceedings before Departmental authority; prohibition in Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan against issuance of injunction by Courts, having implication of its conferment on the Tribunal, unfettered rights of the Tribunal to correct a wrong by attracting all the provisions of the C. P. C. by virtue of section 5 of the Service Tribunal Act and objections that the Cantonment Board Employees were not covered by definition of Civil Servant as given in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, were touched, yet these points were not fully thrashed out and as they do not necessarily determine the fate of this appeal, we will ignore these ancillary issues to concentrate on its competence. As already mentioned, the prayer is two-fold, to prohibit extension of probationary period and to save reversion. Probationary period already stands extended, while there is no order of reversion. Former has been accomplished, the later is to be formulated yet. In this context, status quo will serve no useful purpose in the former event, while no order being there as to the later, appeal would not be enter- tainable thereto. The appeal is even incompetent with respect to extension of probationary period. Civil Servant Act of 1973 in its section 22(2) provides a representation to higher authority, than the one which passed the original order whilel section 4(1 )(a) lays down that no appeal shall lie to Tribunal unless thep aggrieved Civil Servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such Departmental authority and a period of 90 days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred. No appeal being provided by rule 52 of the Pakistan Cantonment Service Rules of 1954, a representation was to be filed to a higher authority under section 22(2) of the Civil Servant Act. As no repre-l sentation was filed, the appeal is incompetent. It is premature and cannotp be entertained. Non entertainability fetters right to pray for injunction too. The appeal as already said, being premature, is dismissed for noncompliance with section 4(1 )(a) of Service Tribunal Act.