' Instant Intra Court Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-10-2004 passed in Writ petition No,17607/2002 by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court, whereby constitutional petition filed by respondent No,3 was allowed and appointment of the appellant against the post of Patwari was declared to be without lawful authority and a direction was issued for appointment of respondent No,3 in his place.
2. Appellant and respondent No,3 were candidates for the post of Patwari against twenty vacancies in Tehsil Mianwali, through their respective applications. After going through the prescribed process of selection, appellant secured 56 marks out of 100 and was placed in the merit list at serial No,12, whereas respondent No,3 could get 48 marks and remained at serial No,21. The competent authority selected and appointed the appellant against one post of Patwari in Tehsil Mianwali on merits believing his domicile appended with the application of the same Tehsil. Respondent No,3 aggrieved of appointment of the appellant filed a constitutional petition with the averments that he was the only bona fide resident of Tehsil Mianwali and the appellant could not have been preferred, who, according to him, belonged to Tehsil Esakhel. It was emphasized by respondent No,3 before the learned Single Judge in Chambers that the last date for submission of applications was 21-8-2002 where after interview of the candidates was held on 26-8-2002 and during this period appellant manipulated a false domicile certificate showing his place of residence as Mianwali instead of Esakhel. It was also the case of respondent No,3 in the constitutional petition that the appellant was not eligible and his candidature could not be considered as against him.
The learned Single Judge in Chambers being impressed that appellant was not domiciled of Mianwali on the closing date i,e, 21-8-2002, issued the writ, as noted above.
3. We have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended with the constitutional petition as well as the original record requisitioned from the office of District Magistrate. Domicile Certificate bearing No,438 of the appellant appended with the writ petition as Annex.D at pages 15 and 16 was issued on 14-2-1988 showing his domicile abode of Esakhel, but the same was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Mianwali, vide his order dated 3-5-1999. The original domicile file of the appellant brought by Fateh Muhammad AHC, DCO Office Mianwali contained not only the order of District Magistrate dated 3- 5-1999, but the original certificate dated 14-2-1988 was secured with the remarks "cancelled" with the signatures and stamp of the District Magistrate. After cancellation of domicile of the appellant, a fresh domicile of Mianwali was issued by the competent authority on 26-8-2002. Report also revealed the petitioner had moved application for issuance of fresh domicile certificate on 19-6- 2002, before the date of invitation of applications for fulfilling the vacancies in question.
4. Both the Tehsils i,e, Esakhel and Mianwali are part of one district and there was no misrepresentation of part of the appellant, especially when he, in support of his claim that he was a permanent resident of Tehsil Mianwali and not of Esakhel, produced Revenue Record, copies of PT-I, matriculation certificate and copy of electoral roll of Mohallah Syedanwala Mianwali, but all these documents were not produced before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, domicile means a certificate that its holder is a permanent resident of the place where he has been certified by the official authorized and we are satisfied that appellant since before his application for appointment as Patwari, was a permanent resident of Tehsil Mianwali, where he was enrolled as a voter and his father owned landed property.
5. We have no ambiguity that factual disputes like the one canvassed by respondent No,3 through a constitutional petition should not have been entertained, as the same required determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence and the parties should have been directed to approach the Civil Court for settling dispute regarding domicile of the parties.
6. For the reasons noted above, judgment/order dated 11-10-2004 passed in Writ Petition No,17607/2002 is set aside being contrary to documentary proof with the result that writ petition filed by respondent No,3 is dismissed and instant appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.