1. This is a review application whereby, Ali Muhammad applicant wants this Court to review its order dated 2nd February, 1982, passed in Civil Revision No. 442/81, remanding the case for re-writing the judg--ments after hearing the parties.
2. After hearing the learned coups-.l and going through his petition and the judgment sought to be reviewed. I find that the case was remanded for re-writing of the judgments because the judgments of the learned Courts below were not according to law. Sincehad remanded the case because of the defective judgments and had not touched the merits of the case, the detailed contentions raised by the petitioner do not make out a good ground for interference with the judgment dated 2 February, 1982, under Order XLVII, rules I and 4, C.P.C. The review application is accordingly dismissed.
2. M. Y. H. Application dismissed.
3. 1982 CLC 2383 (2)
4. [Quetta] Before Mir Khuda Bakhsh Marri and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ-Petitioner versus SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ENGINEERING SEATS ETc.- Respondents Constitutional Petition No. 168 of 1980, decided on 5th November, 1980.
(a) Domicile Certificate-nd --- Possession of Domicile Certificate, held, does not give entitlement for grant of Permanent Residence Certificate if such person estab--lished to be not resident of District or to have abandoned that District for good.
(b) Sind Permanent Residence Rules, 1971- Rules though not framed by Province of Baluchistan yet, held, may be helpful to District Authorities of Baluchistan.----[Interpretation of statutes].
(c) Sind Permanent Residence Rules, 1971- -- Permanent Residence Certificate--Considerations for grant of.
(i) The applicant has nexus in the District ; (ii) he has been settled since long in the area ; (i.e) he belongs to one of the recognized tribe of the area and has not abandoned that area; (0) his family members, close relatives are permanent residents of the District ; (v) he has no intention to leave ;
(iv) he has no connection whatsoever with any other area.
(d) Sind Permanent Residence Rules, 1971-- Permanent Residence Certificate, grant of--Temporary shift from District due to exigencies of service or to earn one's liveli--hood, held, may not be considered as disqualification for grant of such certificate-Consideration for grant : certificate not being acquired to get seat in technical institutions or to obtain some other benefits and having no intention to sever connection with that District.
(e) Sind Permanent Residence Rules, 1971-- ---Holding of Domicile Certificate, held, does not entitle such person to grant of Permanent Residence Certificate.
5. Muhammad Yar v. Deputy Commissioner Loralai 1980 SCMR 440 ref.
(f) Educational Institutions--- -- Admissions--Requirement of Production of Permanent Residence Certificate-Petitioner neither residing temporarily nor permanently in District S--Decision of Selection Committee that petitioner failed to produce Permanent Residence Certificate and as such ineligible for seat, held, unexceptionable-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.
6. Yaqoob Yousufzai for Petitioner.
7. Basharatullah, Advocate-General Baluchistan for Respondents Nos. I and 2.
8. Muhammad Afsur for Respondent No. 3.
9. Date of hearing : 5th November, 1983.
10. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The case of the Petitioner in the amended petition is that the father of the petitioner joined the service of Pakistan Railway and as such he was posted at Sibi in February, 1947 and since then the petitioner's father is continuously serving in the Province of Baluchistan. He has served for a period of 13 years in Sibi District. The petitioner was not only born at Sibi but he was brought up and educated as. Well there. The Peti--tioner, passed his Primary and Middle Class from Government Middle School, Sibi and also passed his Matriculation Examination from Government High School, Harnai, Sibi, in the year 1977. The petitioner's father obtained Domicile Certificate (Annexure 4) issued by the District Magistrate Sibi on 31st December, 1974 after necessary investigation. The petitioner passed his F. Sc. Examination from the Intermediate College, Chaman by securing 575 marks. The petitioner topped the list of students prepared on merits, by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of candidates for admission to Engineering College both in respect of Sibi District and also the District Pishin. The petitioner was thus entitled to one out of 3 seats reserved for Sibi District on the basis of merit. However, when the result was announced by the respon--dent No. I on 3rd July, 1980 the petitioner's name was missing.
2. The petition has been contested by the respondents. According to respondent No. 1 the petitioner has severed all connections with Sibi District as he could not prove his intention for settling down permanently at Sibi. The Deputy Commissioner, Sibi did not issue Permanent Residence Certificate.
11. The production of Permanent Resi--dence Certificate alongwith the Application for Engineering seat from the District concerned is an essential requirement of the admission policy and the petitioner could not produce the same, his candidature could not be established. The respondent No. 3 adopted the arguments of the other respondents. It is further stated that the grandfather of the respondent No. 3 is a domicile of Sibi.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a bona fide resident of District Sibi, therefore, he was entitled to get admission in Engineering College on the basis of merits. The petitioner was not considered for a seat as the Deputy Commissioner did not issue Permanent Residence Certificate to the petitioner.
12. According to the District Magistrate the Residence Certificate is issued to an applicant who is actually living in a District at a particular period of time. The applicant was neither living temporarily nor permanently in the District Sibi, at the time of his applying for a Residence Certificate.
4. The policy laid down by the Government for admission in the Engineering College prescribes that a candidate must produce local/domicile certificate from the District Magistrate and Permanent Residence Certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that domicile certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner's father and that Domicile Certificate has not been cancelled, therefore, he was entitled to the issuance of Permanent Residence Certificate. There is a positive finding by the Selection Committee that the petitioner was not residing in Sibi when he moved the application. This is a ques--tion of fact which has been resolved by the competent authority and the petitioner has not been able to rebut this finding. The petitioner accord--ing to his own showing had passed his Intermediate Examination from Chaman and, therefore, this finding of fact is supported by the petitioner's own assertion. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's father had purchased some property at Sibi and it shows that he had all intention to settle down in Sibi. This may be so but as the Permanent Residence Certificate was not produced by the petitioner, therefore, the Selection Committee was right in rejecting his application. The Domicile Certificate was granted to the father of the petitioner under Citizenship Act. The Permanent Residence Certificate is required in order to show that the applicant is a bona fide resident of that District from which he claims seat. Such a condition in the Pros--pectus has been made in order to save the interest of those candidates who are bona fide residents of backward Districts. The question then arises whether a person who has been granted a domicile certificate is entitled to the grant of Permanent Residence Certificate on the basis of such Domicile Certificate. This is a question of fact which could only be determined by the District Authority after making a detailed probe in the matter. In our opinion simply because a person is in possession of local or domicile certificate does not entitle him to they Permanent Residence Certificate, if otherwise it is established that such person is not resident of the District or abandoned that District for good and has no connection whatsoever with the area, from which he bad procured local or domicile certificate. The Province of Baluchistan has not framed any rules, but the Province of Sind has framed certain rules for the grant of Permanent Residence Certificate. These Rules may be helpful to the District authorities for the grant of Residence Certificate. The relevant provision reads as under :- "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 Sind, and further-
(a) in the case of person of legitimate birth, at the time of his birth his father was domicile in Sind, or if he was born after the death of his father, the latter, at the time of his death was domicile in Sind, or
(b) in the case of a person of illegitimate birth, his mother, at the time of his birth, was domicile of Sind ; or
(ii) in the case of person who was not born in Sind-
(a) his parents are domiciled in Sind, and have resided in Sind for a period of not less than 3 years ; or (i.e) his father or mother is in the service of the Government of Sind and has put in not less than one year service as such."
13. The Sind rules have been framed keeping in view, the large influx of refugees from India, who have been settled down in Sind. On the other hand no such condition exist in this Province, therefore, in our opinion the District authorities before granting Permanent Residence Certificate may consider amongst others the following circumstances :-
(i) The applicant has nexus in the District ;
(ii) he has been settled since long in the area ; (i.e) he belongs to one of the recognized tribe of the area and ha not abandoned that area ;
(iv) his family members, close relatives are permanent residents o the District ;
(v) he has no intention to leave the area ;
(vi) he has no connection whatsoever with any other area.
14. These are some of considerations which may be helpful to the authorities while granting permanent residence certificate. A temporary shift from the District due to exigency of service or to earn one's livelihood may not be considered as a disqualification for the grant of such Certi-- ficate. The main consideration in coming to the conclusion is that sue certificate is not being acquired only to get a seat in the technical insti--tutions or to obtain some other benefits but his real intention to settle down permanently in the District and has no intention t sever his, connections with that District. We are of the opinion that the existence of a Domicile Certificate does not entitle the holder of such certificate to have the Permanent Residence Certificate. The Supreme Court in Muhammad Yar v. Deputy Commissioner Loralai (1--80 SCMR 440) has come to the conclusion that a Domicile Certificate cannot be issued in favour of a person who is a national of Pakistan by birth and-in such circumstances it may be considered as a certificate of residence.
15. It may be cancelled by the District Magistrate if he comes to the conclusion that a person who has acquired such certificate is n of a resident of the District. S. In the present case according to the petitioner himself he was not resident of District Sibi or Sibi Town, at the time of making his application for Permanent Residence Certificate. Even there is a conclusive finding that the petitioner is not residing temporarily nor permanently. These findings have not been disputed or controverter by the petitioner. As the petitioner was ineligible for the seat as he failed to supply Permanent Residence Certificate, therefore, the finding of the Selection Committee is not open to exception. Apart from the above-stated facts, the petitioner in the first instance did not make up any request for the grant of Permanent Residence Certificate. He did not make Deputy Magistrate Sibi as a party to the Proceedings an did not challenge the finding of District Magistrate, Sibi.
16. Subsequent through an amendment in the petition such prayer was made. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.