' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C J.---Listed appeals are by the leaVe of the Court. Leave granting order from one of the appeals (C.A. No,2227 of 2005) is reproduced herein below:-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, we grant leave to appeal to consider as to which of the clauses of Rule 6 of the Rules for Competitive Examination, 1996, were attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Facts of both the cases are reproduced as follows from the impugned judgments in W.Ps.
No,19477 of 2000 and 24015 of 2000.
W.P. No,24015 of 2000 ' The petitioner claims to be a subject/national of State of Jammu and Kashmir and a permanent resident of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. . He appeared in the Central Superior Services (hereinafter referred to as CSS) Examination held in 1993 claimed himself to be a subject of Jammu and Kashmir State but he did not qualify the said examination. He however, appeared in the Provincial Civil Service Competitive Examination of the Punjab held in 1994 on the strength of his domicile of Punjab held in 1994 on the strength of his domicile of Punjab, was selected and joined as Extra Assistant Commissioner in 1995. Fie again appeared in the C.S.S. Examination of 1999 claiming himself to be a national of Jammu and Kashmir. However, vide letter dated 23-6-2000 of the Federal Public Service Commission he was informed that the Commission had accepted his domicile as Punjab in terms of rule 6(ii)(i) of the C.S.S. Examination Rules, 1999. The petitioner made a representation which was rejected vide letter dated 31-7-2000, the said orders have been assailed in this constitutional petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for appointment against the vacancies reserved for Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It may be noted that petitioner was selected in 1999 C.S.S. Examination and on the basis of his domicile of the Punjab allocated to the Income Tax Group. Vide order dated 4-12-2000 of this Court he was permitted to join the said group without prejudice to his right to seek decision of the present petition.
Writ Petition No,19477 of 2000 ' This petition pertains to the C.S.S. Examination held in 1996. The case of the petitioner is that his father was Class I subject of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and had migrated to Sialkot District as Azad Jammu and Kashmir refuge in the year 1982. He unsuccessfully appeared in the C.S.S. Examinations held in the years 1988 and 1992. Meanwhile, he was selected and appointed as Drug Inspector in the Service of the Government of the Punjab in the Health Department on 16-10-1988.
He again appeared in C.S.S. Examination held in the year 1996. According to the averments of the writ petition, the petitioner had competed against the posts reserved for A.J.K. Candidates in all the three C.S.S. Examination. On 3-5-1997 the petitioner was informed that the Federal Public Service Commission had accepted his domicile as Punjab in terms of Rule 6(iii)(g) of the rules for the competitive examination, 1996 the petitioner was selected in 1996 examination and on the basis of the Punjab domicile he was allocated to the Postal Group which he joined. It is averred that on 12- 5-1997, the petitioner had filed a representation before the Federal Public Service Commission and again filed representation before the ,learned Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission on 15-8-2000 which was rejected vide order dated 11-9-2000.
' In this petition the prayer made is that the Federal Public Service Commission be directed to appoint him against the quota reserved for Azad Jammu and Kashmir candidates. It is averred that a vacancy pertaining to the year 1996 is still available in the Income Tax and Central Excise Group.
' In the report and para wise comments submitted by the Federal Public Service Commission the position taken in both the cases is that the petitioners in both the cases had joined Government service on the basis of Punjab domicile which was accepted in terms of rules 6(iii)(i) and 6(iii)(g) for the C.S.S. Examinations held in 1999' and 1996 respectively. The rule was the same for the aforesaid examinations.
3. The appellants after having qualifying C.S.S. Examination in the years 1999 and 1996 respectively were allocated professional groups of Income Tax and Postal Service respectively treating them to be the domicile of Province of Punjab. It was their claim that as they belong to AJK therefore, they should be allocated against quota of AJK. It seems that request made by them was not entertained, as such they instituted writ petitions ..Before the High Court which have been dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
4. Mr. Farooq Amjad Meer learned counsel in C.A. No,1629 who has taken main burden of arguing the case along with Mr. Arif Raja, Advocate Supreme Court in C.A. No,2227 of 2005 has contended that the appellants belong to AJK and they have placed material on record for the purpose of substantiating their plea namely that they have wrongly been allocated professional groups from Province of Punjab. In this behalf he has referred certain documents as well as the rules, particularly the CSS Examination Rules for competitive examination for the years 1996 and 1999 respectively. He argued that that the candidates who are residents of AJK Territory get more benefits in the age limit and their eligibility would be examined on the basis of nationality of AJK, therefore, according to him the rule 6(iii)(i) would not be applicable because once they have been joined to be the domicile from the. AJK, they are eligible for accommodation against the reserved quota from there. It may be noted that the rule which is being relied upon namely rule 6(iii)(g)(h) and (i) were identical for the examination of 1996 and 1999, therefore, sub-rules (g), (h), (i) are reproduced hereinbelow:--
(g) The domicile claimed by a candidate and accepted by the Government at the time of entry into Government service shall be treated as final throughout his/her service career and no subsequent change in his/her domicile will be recognized for the purpose of terms and conditions of his/her service including his/her allocation and liability to transfer.
(h) The domicile once claimed and accepted by the Commission for the purpOse of admission to an examination, no change will be allowed at a subsequent examination or selection.
(i) Only those candidates shall be considered for vacancies reserved for Azad Jammu and Kashmir whose application forms for the Competitive Examination are accompanied by the domicile certificate along with Permanent Residence Certificate, issued by the Kashmir Affairs Division, of that territory. No such certificates shall be accepted at any later stage.
5. It is an admitted position that Muhammad Shakoor (C.A. No,2227 of 2005) joined service in the Health Department of the Government of Punjab before appearing in the C.S.S. Examination on the basis of the domicile certificate of Punjab. Similarly Rehan Safdar (C.A.No,1629 of 2006) was selected by Provincial Public Service Commission as Extra Assistant Commissioner on the basis of domicile certificate of Punjab. The appellants on filing the examination forms for the purpose of C.S.S. Examination both under rules 1996 and 1999 were fully aware about the situation that earlier they had taken the benefit as the domicile certificate of Punjab and on the basis of the same they joined service in the Provincial Cadre, therefore, the learned High Court on having taken into consideration this aspect of the case came to the conclusion that as they have entered into the service of Provincial Government as domicile of Punjab, therefore, they cannot change position now by saying that they are domicile of AJK, therefore, their allocation may be made from the quota reserved for AJK. In this behalf it is to be noted that the statutory rules for the purpose of CSS Examination are framed to provide equal opportunity to all the candidates who are contesting from the various places of the Territory of Pakistan as well as from AJK. Competitive Examination allows opportunities to all such candidates to compete for the examination and then the allocations are made in the Professional Groups and the rules are not supposed to cause prejudice to any of the candidate competing for the examination. For example the appellants who had applied for C.S.S. Examination in 1996, 1999 had in fact deprived so many candidates from the Province of Punjab from where they were claiming themselves as domiciles when they joined Provincial Service. Thus once they had the benefit of a domicile certificate issued in their favour from a pai*ular Province then they are not allowed to claim further benefits in examination on managing to get domicile certificate from an area where more benefits are extended in service like AJK. As in the instant case appellants joined Provincial Service as Drug Inspector and Extra Assistant Commissioner on basis of domicile certificate, therefore, they deprived genuine candidates from the Province of Punjab for the purpose of competing for both the seats because at that time their claim was that they belong to Punjab.
7. To avoid such situation the rules framers have provided in rule 6(iii)(i) that a person who entered into a Government service on the basis of any domicile certificate would not be allowed to change his domicile certificate in the future service. In this context it may be noted that learned High Court rightly observed that Government service does not mean that only the service of Federation of Pakistan but it also include the service of Provinces which have been accepted/joined by the appellants on the basis of the domicile certificate of that area. A perusal of rule 6(iii)(i) clearly indicates that once a person had expressed his, intention to be a domicile of a particular area he cannot change his place of domicile certificate subsequently for the purpose of getting better B benefits. The expression domicile came for consideration before this Court in the case of Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner Political Agent, Loralai 1980 SCM R 456. The ratio of the said judgment is that as far as the domicile certificates are concerned they are obtained for the purpose of admission in professional colleges as well as for job and once a person has decided by showing his intention to be a domicile of a particular area, he is to be treated the domicile from that area for all intents and purposes. It seems that as far as the rule 6(iii)(i) is concerned it has been framed in the light of the observations which have been made by this Court in the judgment noted above. Thus we are of the opinion that under the circumstances, learned High Court was justified in not issuing writ in favour of the appellants.
8. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.