2005 PLP 669 (CLC)

The petitioner is again before this Court. Earlier she filed Writ Petition No.5353 of 2004 which was disposed of on 5-10-2004 with a direction to the respondent D.C.O. to decide the matter in accordance with law.

2. The grievance being made out in the present petition is that D.C.O. has passed the order dated 16-10-2004 (Annexure G ) in violation of the said earlier order, inasmuch as, he has failed to note the impact of the documents produced by the petitioner and the applicable law. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was married to Muhammad Faiz who was resident of Chak No.21/14-L, Tehsil Chichawatni District Sahiwal where the school in question is located. Nikah was performed on 13-12-2002 and under the law domicile of the petitioner is to be reckoned as that of her husband.

3. The Law Officer present for the respondent contends that according to her domicile certificate she is resident of Sahiwal, it was only after date of interview that a fresh domicile certificate was produced.

4. The respondent No.2 has been duly served as per report on the process but no one on her behalf has turned up despite several calls, she is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

5. The background of this case is that the respondents took steps to employ Educators and issued an advertisement. One of the terms was that 10 additional marks were to be given to a candidate if she opted to be employed in a school at the place of her residence. The petitioner opted to be employed in school situated at Chak No.26/14-L. She was initially given 10 marks but then these were deducted and the result was that she was not appointed. Now the unrebutted plea of the petitioner is that she got married to Muhammad Faiz on13-12-2002 vide copy of Nikahnama (Annexure C ). He is resident of Chak No.21/14/L. Her Identity Card issued on 12-12-2002 (Annexure D ) also shows her permanent address at Chak No.21/14-L. Now the respondent No.1 has not at all considered the said documents, particularly the factum of marriage. On the other hand, he has placed emphasis on the fact that fresh domicile certificate was issued on 28-9-2004, whereas the appointment proceedings were completed on 25-9-2004.

6. To my mind the learned D.C.O. has acted without lawful authority. He has some how refused to consider that after her marriage to the said person regarding whose residence in Chak No.21/14-L, there was no dispute, the petitioner would automatically be deemed to be domiciled in the said area. Section 16 of the Succession Act, 1925 provides in clear terms that wife s domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband. Thus, the statutory provision has been completely ignored by the respondent D.C.O. while passing the impugned order.

7. This writ petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned order, dated 16-10-2004 is set aside. The result is that the petitioner shall now be considered for appointment on the basis that she is entitled to 10 additional marks as she has opted to serve in the said school in Chak No.26/14-L. A copy of this order be immediately remitted to the respondent No.1 for compliance, preferably within four weeks and a report accordingly be submitted to the D.R. (J.) of this Court. No order as to costs. H.B.T./F-76/L Petition allowed.