' 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.