2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
QAISAR KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others
| Citation | 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed, C.J., Faisal Arab and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ |
| Parties | QAISAR KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others |
| Primary Law | Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed, C.J., Faisal Arab and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (QAISAR KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Shumail Ahmed Butt, A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Respondents Nos. 1 - 4.
- Khalid Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 5.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 12.01.2010 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 3372 of 2009)
Reglns. 20(c) & 20(g)
Domicile certificate
Renunciation of domicile by implication
Scope
Respondent got employment as Lecturer on the domicile of "Tribal area" but subsequently, he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector Legal in the settled area claiming himself to be the holder of domicile of "Mardan"
Held, that respondent had obtained employment as Sub-Inspector Legal by producing domicile of Mardan and apparently, when such domicile was produced it stood final
Clause (g) of Regln. No. 20 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003 made provision for renouncement of domicile of settled District for obtaining of category 'B' domicile of Tribal area
No such requirement apparently was mentioned in the Regulations for obtaining of domicile of settled area like 'Mardan'
In any case, once respondent had produced the domicile of Mardan, its implication was that he had renounced the domicile of Tribal area and no more remained the resident of the said Agency
Appellant had never argued that respondent had obtained domicile certificate from 'Mardan' through malpractice or some mis-declaration, nor any material to such effect was available on the record
Appeal was dismissed. Qazi Babar Irshad, Additional Attorney General on Court's Notice.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, C.J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that respondent No. 5 earlier had got employment as Lecturer on the domicile of Mohmand Agency but subsequently, he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector Legal in the settled area claiming himself to be the holder of domicile of Mardan. The appellant also applied for the post of Sub-Inspector Legal. Respondent No. 5 secured first position in the test and interview while appellant secured second position, as such, respondent, No. 5 was appointed as Sub-Inspector Legal. The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Peshawar High Court which vide impugned order dated 12.01.2010 was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the provision of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003, more specifically the Regulation No. 20(c) thereof.
4. We have considered such Regulation and have noted that clause (c) does not in any way help the case of the appellant in that it speaks of domicile once produced shall be final. Respondent No. 5 has obtained employment as Sub-Inspector Legal by producing domicile of Mardan and apparently, when such domicile is produced by respondent No. 5 it stood final.
5. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 5 was also having domicile of Mohmand Agency is concerned, we note that clause (g) of Regulation No. 20 makes provision for renouncement of domicile of settled District for obtaining of category 'B' domicile of Mohmand Agency. No such requirement apparently is mentioned in the Regulation for obtaining of domicile of settled area.
6. In any case, once respondent No. 5 has produced the domicile of Mardan, its implication is that he has renounced the domicile of Mohmand Agency and no more remains the resident of the said Agency. We note that it is not the case of the appellant that respondent No. 5 has obtained domicile certificate from Mardan through malpractice or making of mis-declaration. No such contention has been raised nor any material to that effect is available on the record.
7. The High Court in the impugned order has dealt with the matter in accordance with law and we see no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. MWA/Q-2/SC Appeal dismissed.