2002 PLP 413 (CLC)

Before grant or otherwise of the admission to respondent, the petitioner filed C.P. No.277 of 2000, with the prayer to cancel the Domicile Certificate issued in favour of respondent by the District Magistrate, Zhob. In the meanwhile ‑the report of District Magistrate, Zhob was placed before the Selection Committee, who without considering the same, granted admission to the respondent, against one bf the reserved seats of District Zhob. As such, against the order granting admission to the respondent, on the basis of Domicile Certificate issued to respondent from District Zhob, the petitioner has filed C.P. No.301 of 2000. Since both the petitions are connected, involving same facts and law points, therefore, by means of this common judgment, we intend to dispose of both the petitions. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner, contended; that the respondent has obtained the Domicile fraudulentiy, only on the ground, that his father owns some immovable property in District Zhob. He further contended, that respondent has never lived in Zhob and has passed his Matriculation and F.Sc Examination from Liaah (Punjab). Learned counsel argued, that the Selection Committee has erred in granting admission to respondent, without considering the commendations made by the District Magistrate Zhob, as contemplated in para.31 of the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the Session 1998‑

99. Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned counsel, ‑for the respondent and Selection Committee, vehemently opposed the petition, by contending that the admission was rightly granted to respondent on the basis of Domicile Certificate issued in his favour. He further contended, that the respondent owns immovable property since time of his ancestors and the family of respondent is living in Zhob. It is only, that father of petitioner is a Contractor in Liaah, therefore, they had temporarily shifted over there. Thus, no interference is called for, by this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and also 'gone through the available record. A perusal of the record indicates, that the Domicile Certificate issued in favour of the father of respondent was challenged, on the ground that respondent never lived in Zhob. He has received education upto Intermediate at Liaah. Besides the names of the entire family of respondent have been entered in the electoral roll of District Liaah and further there is nothing to suggest that for the last fifteen years, the respondent or his family members have lived in Zhob. On the submission of such application, the District Magistrate, got conducted an enquiry and even the Members of the Committee for issuing Local/Domicile Certificates, recommended for cancellation of the Domicile Certificate issued in favour of the respondent, as none of them had seen him in Zhob. The District Magistrate, after holding of enquiry held that the father of respondent owned immovable property for the last 30/40 years and his residence is at Liaah (Punjab), where he resides most of the time. He further pointed out that the age of respondent in different documents varies. In Domicile Certificate, the date of birth has been shown as 1983, whereas in the admission form submitted in the University of Balochistan the date of birth has been shown as 1980 and in the Matriculation Certificate, it is shown as 1979. Ultimately he recommended that admission .may not be granted to respondent against the reserved seats of District Zhob. The contention of Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel has substance, that the respondent that never lived in Zhob. He passed his Matriculation and F.Sc. Examination from Liaah and there is nothing to suggest that he ever lived in Zhob nor anything has been brought on record to show, that he intends to permanently settle down in Zhob. It is pertinent to note, that it was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to have enquired; whether the respondent actually belonged to District Zhob or otherwise, as contemplated in paragraph 31 of the Prospectus. For reference para. 31 is reproduced herein below:‑‑ "

31. The Selection Committee, on the basis of the application form of the candidate is required under paragraph No.38 of the prospectus and or further inquiry through the Deputy Commissioner or other sources, shall be competent to decide as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district/agency of which' he/she is entitled of being selected against the seat of that district/agency or not. The candidate shall be bound to abide by the decision of the Selection Committee." We are not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel Syed Ayaz Zahoor, that respondent has temporarily shifted to Liaah, as his father is doing business over there. It is worth‑mentioning that even there is nothing on record to show, that the respondent ever lived in District Zhob. Conversely, the record transpires, that the respondent has lived through in Liaah and even there is nothing on record to show that respondent was born at Zhob. It may be observed that just by owning some immovable property in certain District does not make him the permanent resident of said District. Besides, it has come on record that the respondent alongwith his family had been living in District Liaah, for the last many years and his father is carrying out business over there and the names of the family members of respondents have also been entered in the electoral roll of District Liaah. It is pertinent to note, that the Domicile Certificate issued under the Citizenship Act, 1951 is not at par with the one issued from a particular District. The former is issued under a specific law, regarding intention of oath for permanently settling in Pakistan by the Holder and by abandoning the domicile of origin from another country. The latter contemplates permanent residence in a particular District. Such‑like Certificates are not issued under any statutory law but are issued by the District Magistrate, in exercise of Administrative Authority. The purpose of issuance of such Local/Domicile Certificates is to get admission in any of the Educational Institution. The issuance of such Certificate vests right in the holder of such Certificate to apply against the reserved seats of the District from where the said certificate is issued. The allocation of such certificate is to compensate the students, who belong to under‑developed areas, to bring them at par with the students of developed areas and in case of cancellation of the Local/Domicile Certificate, would not amount to cancellation of the Citizenship of the country. Thus, it can be safely' concluded, that the Domicile Certificate, like the one issued in favour of respondent, more or less is equivalent to Permanent Residence Certificate of a particular District. It was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to have enquired within the meaning of para.31 of the prospectus, as to whether respondent actually belongs to District Zhob or otherwise? It may further be observed that it is always the status of the candidate, which has to be determined to see; whether he belongs to a particular District or not? The recommendations of the District Magistrate, Zhob, were placed before the Selection Committee, but the same were overruled and the respondent was granted admission, without giving any cogent or substantial reasons. Inasmuch as, the Selection Committee failed to consider that as to why the respondent passed his Matriculation and F.Sc. from Liaah, when facility of School and College, is also available at Zhob. As observed above, it is' always the status of the candidate, which is to be determined to see; whether he belongs to a particular district and nothing the family, as in the case of respondent. There is nothing on record to concur that the respondent had any intention to settle down permanently in District Zhob. The Selection Committee thus, has erred in ignoring the provisions of Para.31 of the Prospectus and has granted admission to the respondent, without determining his place of residence. In this regard, reference may be made to the cases of Miss Sameia Zareen v. Selection Committee 1991 SCMR 2099 and Miss Salma Mughal v. Selection Committee 1993 SCMR 2082. For the foregoing reasons, petitions are accepted and it is held that the respondent does not belong to District Zhob, therefore, the admission granted to him is cancelled. The Selection Committee is directed to allocate the seat to the next eligible candidate, on merits. Parties are left to bear their own costs. S.A.K./112/Q Petition accepted.