' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---This appeal through leave of this Court has arisen in the following circumstances: ' The facts in brief are that the appellant and respondent No,1 happen to be members of the Punjab Local Council Service and thus are deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of Punjab Civil Tribunals Act, 1974 as envisaged under section 44 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
Due to the death of Syed Khalil Safdar, the post of Taxation Officer in the Zila Council, Gun-at fell vacant. The appellant was awaiting his posting/transfer orders as O.S.D. In the Punjab Local Government Board as Taxation Officer. The respondent allegedly on the recommendation of local M.P.A. Secured transfer order in his favour from the respondent No,2 for being posted as Taxation Officer in the Zila Council, Gujrat, which had fallen vacant on account of death of his real brother.
Respondent No,3 in the meanwhile did not allow assumption of the charge to respondent No,1.
Aggrieved by the said orders of respondent No,3, respondent No, I filed Writ Petition No,28694 of 1997 seeking implementation of the said transfer order dated 10-12-1997. The Lahore High Court dismissed the said writ petition'in limine and directed respondent No,1 to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal for the redress of his grievance. Before the implementation of the said order, respondent No,9 recalled the same vide order dated 16-12-1997. The appellant, who was awaiting posting, was posted against the said vacant post vide order dated 20-12-1997 and the appellant took over the charge on 22-12-1997 and the assumption of charge was notified to the concerned authorities. Respondent No, I without challenging the orders of the High Court whereby his writ petition was dismissed and without invoking jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal, filed yet another Writ Petition No,26398 of 1997 challenging the order dated 16-12-1997 whereby his posting order had been withdrawn and also the order dated 20-12-1997 by virtue of which the appellant was posted as Taxation Officer in the Zila Council. It is stated that although the appellant was arrayed as a respondent in the said writ petition, but no notice was served upon him because incorrect address of the appellant was mentioned. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide orders impugned dated 19-1-1998 called upon the Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab to seek instructions and also to procure relevant record. The learned Single Judge further ordered that in the meanwhile status quo shall be maintained. It is stated that on account of the status quo order having been obtained by respondent No,1, he was coerced to relinquish the charge and was also threatened with the proceedings for contempt of the Court. In the background of these circumstances, the appellant has challenged the orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 24-12-1997 whereby order maintaining status quo was passed. This Court vide its order dated 4-2-1998 granted leave to appeal to consider as to whether the writ petition filed by respondent No,1 was maintainable in view of the Constitutional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the light of the judgments reported as lmran Raza Zaidi v.
Government of the Punjab through SGA & ID and 2 others (1996 SCM R 645), Muhammad Ashad Akhtar v. Muhammad Ali and others (1997 SCM R 1476) and Jam Dad Khan v. Province of Punjab and others (1998 SCM R 245), the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy in view of the jurisdictional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. We are constrained to hold that the petition out of which this appeal has arisen was misconceived inasmuch as it was directed against an interim order. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the case and the jurisdictional aspect involved herein any further, we would, direct the Lahore High Court to dispose of Writ Petition No,26398 of 1997 filed by respondent No,1 pending before it within three months of the passing of this order. The parties would be at liberty to raise the jurisdictional question before the High Court.
3. As far as status quo order is concerned, the situation prevailing on 28-1-1998 shall continue in the meanwhile.