P LD 1999 Quetta 74 (PLP)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, J.--Petitioner Tafakhar Ali Asadi son of Mukhtar Hussain, cleared Competitive Examination in the year, 1997, held by the Federal Public Service Commission, under the Competitive Examination Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 1997'). After his qualifying written examination, petitioner was also interviewed by the Commission on 17th October, 1998. In the meanwhile, before his Interview, he received Letter No.CE/6807/97-CSS, dated October 1st, 1998, from the Commission, wherein he was informed that his Domicile Certificate has been accepted by the Commission, as of Punjab, in accordance with rule 6(iii)(a) of the Rules of 1997. Later on', F.P.S.C. declared the Result on 27th September, 1998, wherein his name appeared at Serial No.298 and he was shown to be the Candidate from Punjab. As such, instant petition has been instituted, to call in question letter, dated 1st October, 1998.. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel contended that petitioner belongs to Balochistan, as his father had obtained a Domicile Certificate, as back as on 29th June, 1979, which contains the name of petitioner at Serial No.3. Subsequently on 24th July, 1996, petitioner obtained his independent Domicile Certificate from District Magistrate, Quetta. The petitioner had obtained professional education of Bachelor of Engineering and University of Science and Technology, Khuzdar, on basis of Domicile Certificate of his father and for the allotment of seat, he was found to be the candidate belonging to Balochistan, as per the dictum in his favour, delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No.290 of 1991. Therefore, the Federal Public Service Commission, has illegally considered the petitioner to be the domicile of Punjab, vide impugned letter. On the other hand, Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned Deputy Attorney-- General did oppose the petition halfheartedly, as he himself was of the opinion that the F.P.S.C. should have interpreted the expressions 'belongs/belonged' as they have used in Rule 6(iii) (a) in the light of the judgments of superior Courts. Thus, he conceded that in view of the material available on record, the petitioner would be treated to be a candidate of Balochistan, because his father belongs to this Province, in view of the Domicile Certificate, which he has obtained, way back in 1979, in his favour. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and also examined the relevant Rules. Before dilating upon the respective contentions of parties' counsel' it would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the letter, dated 1st October. 1998:-- "Reference your candidature for the above examination. I am to inform you that your domicile has been accepted by the Commission as Punjab in terms of rule 6(iii) (a) of the Rules for Competitive Examination, 1997. " As per the contents of above letter, the petitioner has been treated to be the domicile of Punjab under Rule 6(iii) (a) of the Rules of 1997. A plain reading of the said rule suggests that in case of candidate, whose father belongs by birth or by origin to a Pakistan Province/area it is immaterial where he/she has received his/her education or has resided. Such a candidate will be considered for appointment against the quota of vacancies reserved for the Province/area to which his/her father belongs/belonged. Thus, for allocating the quota of vacancies in the Competitive Examination, the criteria laid down by the Rule makers is that the candidate would be considered of that province, to which, his father belongs or belonged, irrespective of the fact that from where he/she has received education. By means of this provision, the Rule-framers perhaps have considered a candidate to belong to that area, where his/her father was born or by origin belongs to that area. In the instant case, no indication is available in the impugned order, that on basis of which material, it has been concluded by the F.P.S.C. that the father of petitioner belongs by birth or by origin to the Province of Punjab. Perhaps in the examination Forms the petitioner has mentioned that his father was born in Punjab, therefore, he was considered to be the domicile of Punjab, without taking into consideration; whether petitioner's father had a domicile of that area or not? In this behalf the F.P.S.C. instead of using the word 'domicile' in the impugned order, may have stated that as per convincing evidence or admission of petitioner, his father by birth or by origin belongs to Punjab, therefore, the candidate also belongs to that Province, for the purpose of reserved vacancies. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel, contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Judgments reported as Mst. Samiea Zarin v. Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and others (1991 SCMR 2099) and Miss Salma Mughal v. Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and others (1993 SCMR 2083), has interpreted the word 'belong'. It may be seen that in the former judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has defined the word 'belong' as follows:--

11. Since the words as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district agency of which he/she has produced the local/domicile certificate' have been used, it may be appropriate to refer to the ordinary literary meaning of the key word 'belong' as it is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes or the piles framed thereunder that the words have to be given their ordinary meaning in the absence of any special meaning assigned to them under the relevant statute or the statutory rules. In this behalf reference may be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashiq Hussain and others v. The State (1989 SCMR 392). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition, 1976) and Chambers 20th Dictionary (New Edition), define the above word as follows:-- 'belong v.i.l. Be rightly assigned to (as duty, right possession, natural or usual accompaniment, example in classification, characteristic, part. member, inhabitant, appendage); to, be member of (club, household, grade of society, etc.)

2. Be resident in or connected with.

3. Be rightly placed or classified (in, under, etc.); fit a specified environment etc. (ME, app. an intensive, f. BE-2, of ME loneen belong f. OE langian (geland at hand).' 'belong bi-long, v.i. (in all senses usu. with to) to go along (with): to pertain (to): to be the property (of): to be part or appendage (of), or in anyway connected (with): to be specially the business (of)'. " From the above-quoted definition, it is evident that the above word has very wide connotation as it inter alia includes a resident, a native and an inhabitant. In the absence of any special. definition in the prospectus there seems to be no justifiable reason to place narrow or strict construction. We may point out that Article 15 of the Constitution confers right on every citizen subject to reasonable restriction imposed by law in public interest to enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof. The above Constitutional fundamental right cannot be in any manner impaired or defected directly or indirectly. Above para. 34 of the prospectus is to be construed as to advance the objective envisaged by the above Article." Likewise in the later case, same definition which was assigned to the word 'belong' in the former case, was adopted, therefore, there is no need of reproducing it. As we have observed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of Miss Sumaeea Zareen, had observed that it is well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes or the Rules framed thereunder, that the words have to be given their ordinary meaning in absence any special meaning assigned to them under the relevant statute or the statutory rules. Applying this test on Rule 6(iii)(a) of the Rules of 1997, it would be evident that the Rule-makers have not used the words 'belongs/belonged' in a wide connotation, as the interpretation of these words have been confined to the place of birth or of origin in Pakistan, of the father of candidate. Had these conditions not being applied, then there was no difficulty in interpreting the words 'belongs/belonged' in wide connotation. Thus, we are of the opinion that for the purpose of impugned rule, the interpretation of the words 'belongs/belonged' would be restricted, with the condition that a candidate would be deemed for the purpose of allocation of reserved quota of vacancies, only from the place,. to which his father belongs by birth or by origin, therefore, keeping in view this criteria, the F.P.S.C. should have decided the case of petitioner. For the above reasons, the petition is partially allowed. Impugned order is set aside and case is remanded to Federal Public Service Commission, for I decision afresh, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner. No order as to costs. H.B.T./752/Q Petition allowed