1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, CJ.

The petitioner has challenged, in the above petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, the decision of respondent No. 1 conveyed to him vide letter dated 31-5-1989, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. By the impugned decision, the petitioner was informed that he had accepted the offer of appointment and joined Civil Services Academy on 1st November, 1986, without raising any objection with regard to the allocation of the quota on the basis of Punjab Domicile produced by him, and, therefore, in accordance with the instructions contained in the Establishment Division's O.M. No. 1/14/71-TRV, dated 20th September, 1971, he could not ask for reallocation of service group on the basis of quota of Sindh domicile which the petitioner had obtained subsequently. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before us that in similar circumstances in R.A. No. 262 of 1987, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that there is no bar in law for change of domicile of a person and, therefore, the allocation of quota in service on the basis of changed domicile of respondent No. 1 in that case was granted by the Court. We have gone through the judgment in R.A. No. 262 of 1987 filed with the petition. In that case, respondent No. 1 who had appeared in CSS Examination alongwith the petitioner was selected on the basis of the domicile of N.-W.F.P. Province. However, from the facts, as stated in the revisional order, it is quite clear that the respondent No. 1 immediately after his selection raised objection to the allocation of the post to him, on the basis of N.-W.F.P. domicile and contended that he was holding-the domicile of Sindh and, therefore, he should be allocated seat in the service on the basis of Sindh domicile. The respondent No. 1 in that case in fact on 27th January, 1986, addressed a letter to the authorities concerned enclosing his domicile of Sindh, but in spite of all protests the authorities on the basis of the domicile of his father which was of N: W.F.P. Province allocated him quota in service on the basis of N.-W.F.P. domicile. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly when appeared for the first time in the CSS Examination in 1984, used the, domicile of his father which was of Gujranwala, Punjab, and accordingly on the second occasion when he appeared again in the CSS Examination and qualified it in the year 1985, he was considered on the basis of Punjab domicile. The petitioner admittedly raised no objection to the allocation of service group to him on the basis of Punjab domicile. However, when he subsequently obtained domicile of Sindh he applied to respondent No. 1 for change of his service group on the basis of the allocation of Sindh quota. The circumstances of the present case are therefore quite different from the facts involved m R.A. No. 262 of 1987 and as such the decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application. The petitioner is unable to point out any Service Rules under which he was entitled to ask for the change of service group on the basis of allocation of quota of Sindh as a result of acquisition of domicile of Sindh subsequently. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed summarily. M.Y.H./S-697/K Petition dismissed.