' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CJ.---Both these petitions are directed against the order of the Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Appellate Committee dated 19-3-2005, whereby an appeal preferred by Miss Sumbel (respondent No.1 in C.P. No.328 of 2005 and respondent No.5 in C.P.
No.335 of 2005), against cancellation of her permanent residence certificate (PRC) from District Thatta was allowed. The petitioners are likely to be effected by the impugned decision with reference to their admission in medical college.
2. A number of factual controversies were raised. Miss Sumbel's claim as being daughter of one Habibur Rehman resident of Thatta was said to be questionable as her name was not mentioned in the, domicile certificate and other documents relating to the aforesaid Habibur Rehman. The mother of the respondent Miss Sumbel however explained that her husband Habibur Rehman had married twice and she was the . Second wife, Owing to some family disputes she started living separately in Hyderabad where Miss Sumbel acquired her Secondary and Higher Secondary education, however, she claimed that Miss Sumbel was educated upto 8th class at Jungshahi (District Thatta). Moreover, she produced a 'birth certificate' dated 11-8-2003 issued by Nazim Union Council Jungshahi showing that Miss Sumbel was born on 10-11-198$. However, it is established on record that the said Nazim vide letter dated 11-1-2005 recalled the certificate on the ground that it was based on incorrect information and no proceedings against such recall appearing to have been initiated.
3. In any event without going into the factual controversy it is evident that according to her own mother's admission Miss Sumbel has been residing in Hyderabad permanently on account of family dispute and acquired her Secondary and Higher education from that District, factum of family disputes also shows that she was not merely stationed at lyderabad for educational purposes but had taken up permanent residence on account of family circumstances. It appears that the Appellate Committee was persuaded by the consideration that her parents possessed domicile of Thatta District.
4. We are afraid the approach of the Committee was entirely erroneous in law. Indeed legal provisions have existed requiring that the domicile of a child must follow that of her father or mother. Nevertheless, it is well-settled that domicile and PRC are altogether different concepts. In this context it may be appropriate to refer to the well-known pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court where their Lordships succinctly brought out the distinction between the concepts of domicile and permanent residence which is often overlooked on account of the inept language of Form-P1 in Appendix XIV of the Pakistan Citizenship Act. Their Lordships expressly observed that a person could only be considered to be domiciled in a country and not in a particular area thereof and the domicile certificate issued to the petitioner under section 17 of the Citizenship Act by the District Magistrate Loralai could indicate nothing more than the fact that the petitioner was domiciled in Pakistan. Their Lordship further proceeded to hold that for the purpose of securing admission in institutions of higher learning reserve for permanent residents of Balochistan the petitioner would be independently required to prove that he was a permanent resiaent of that Province or one of its Districts and upon doing so he could succeed in securing a certificate of permanent resident as well.
5. Mr. Muzaffarul Hach learned counsel for the respondent emphatically argued that Miss Submbel was entitled to Permanent Residence Certificate from District Thatta as she qualified for the same in terms of rule 6 of the Sindh Permanent Residence Rules which may be reproduced as follows:-- "6. No person shall be eligible for grant of a certificate in Form 'C' unless--
(i) he was born in any area forming a part of Sindh, and further--
(a) in the case of a person of legitimate birth, at the time of his birth, his father was domiciled in Sindh, or if he was bom after the death of his father, the latter at the time of his death was domiciled in Sindh, or
(b) in the case of a person of illegitimate birth, his mother, at the. Time of his birth, was domiciled in Sindh; or
(ii) in the case of a person who was not born in Sindh--
(a) his parents are domiciled in Sindh, and have resided in Sindh for a period of not less than 3 years; or
(b) if his parents are not domiciled in Sindh, he is domiciled in Sindh, and further has either resided in Sindh or has been educated in Sindh for a period of not less than 3 years; or
(iii) his father or mother is in the service of the Government of Sindh and has put not less than one year service as such."
6. We are afraid we find no force in this contention. Rule 6 only lays down the basic prerequisites for enabling a person to acquire a Permanent Residence Certificate from any District in Sindh. Such certificate, however can only be granted upon a finding of facts as to the actual physical residence of the applicant. It may be pertinent to refer to a pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi and 2 others (PLD 1978 Karachi 214).
' The question, however, is whether a person who comes within the requirement of rule 6, and no more, is entitled to a Permanent Residence Certificate Rules is obvious and that is to enable the Government to give effect to what is popularly known the quota system. Under the College Prospectus seats are reserved District-wise with a view to encourage students from what is being referred to as backward areas of the Province. An applicant seeking a seat from a particular District has to establish that he is a permanent resident of that District and thus he does by obtaining a certificate in Form 'C. If rule 6 is read in isolation then an applicant born in Siiidh can obtain the certificate if his father was at the time of the applicant's birth domiciled in Sindh, which would mean that it would be sufficient if his father has his home or abode'in any District of Sindh.
The result would be that an applicant born in Sindh armed with his father's Sindh Domicile can obtain a certificate of Form 'C' and seek admission in one of the reserved seats of a District in Sindh though he may not be a permanent resident of that District. This would make the District-wise reservation of seats redundant. This is not the intent of rule 6 for more than one reason. Rule 6 speaks of eligibility for grant of certificate in Form 'C' and not that its compliance will entitle the applicant to the grant of the certificate. In other words even if a person is a permanent resident of a particular District or area in Sindh, he could not be entitled to a certificate unless he complies with the pre-conditions laid down in rule 6. Rules have to be read as a whole and so read it is clear that firstly the applicant must be a person who is eligible f'Or grant of a certificate under rule 6 and this certificate will, under rule 5(2), be issued to him by the District Magistrate of the area where the applicant is permanently residing after being satisfied under rule 4 that the applicant is a permanent resident of his District and, therefore, entitled to a certificate.'
7. Even otherwise District-wise reservation of seats could only be justified on the principle of affirmative action for residences of less developed area and it would be entirely unfair to treat those who had acquired all the benefits of education in a larger city like Hyderabad eligible to seek admission on seats reserved for residents of Thatta District.
8. Learned Additional Advocate-General candidly conceded that the Appellate Committee had misdirected itself by failing to appreciate the distinction between domicile and the Permanent Resident Certificate.
For the foregoing reasons we would allow the petition, setting aside the impugned order and restore the order of cancellation of Miss D Sumbel's Permanent Residence Certificate for District Thatta.