MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.---Petitioner has called in question the Order dated 12.1.2009 passed by Respondent No.1, whereby Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) in Form 'C' in favour of Petitioner issued by the then District Coordination Of ficer Jamshoro was cancelled. Petition contains the following prayer clause:- "(i) To set aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1 allowing the appeal of Respondent No.3.
(ii) Any other order / relief as this Honourable Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Restrain the Respondent No.2 from giving effect to impugned order .
(iv) Cost of the petition."
2. Relevant facts for deciding the present petition are, that Petitioner claims to be permanent resident of House / Quarter No.CP-34, R.B.B. Colony , district Jamshoro. He completed his educa tion from different Educational Institutions of Jamshoro and as evidence he has appended School Leaving Certificates and Mark Sheet with the Petition. Father of Petitioner was also a doctor by profession and was in the employment of Sindh Government.
Petitioner got admission in 1st year. MBBS in Respondent No.2 (Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences) after going through the requisite process. It is averred in the petition that as one of the formalities of Respondent No.2 University , the documents and particularly Domicile Certificate and PRC were verified by the officials and in this regard the then District Officer (Revenue) carried out spot enquiries. It was reported that Petitioner was a permanent resident of the above mentioned address. In the intervening period his PRC was challenged by Respondent No.3 (Vinod Roshan) and on verbal notice from the office of Respondent No.1, the Petitioner appeared before him on 6.1.200 9. However , in the next couple of dates the impugned order was passed.
It is further contended that no opportunity of hearing as required by law was given to the Petitioner . It is further alleged that the above named private Respondent is an influential person and used his clout, which resulted in passing of the impugned Order . Learned counsel for the Petitioner has referred to various documents available on record as Annexures with the petition in support of his arguments that the impugn ed order is fanciful and contrary to record. It has been further alleged in the main petition that since Respondent No.3 did not get admission in 1st year MBBS and was in the waiting list, hence, he resorted to such tactics.
3. The petition is not seriously contested on behalf of Respondent No.2 (University) and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 in fact did not oppose the petition; whereas, learned A.A.G. has opposed the petition and argued in favour of the impugned Order , inter alia, that the same was passed within the parameters of law and does not suffer from any illegality; however no parawise comments are filed on behal f of Respondent No.1. Private Respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit. crux of which is that PRC of the Petitioner was obtained fraudulently as his father was permanent resident of district Naushahro Feroze and not ,Jamshoro; whereas Respondent No.3 and his forefathers were born and raised at Thano Bola Khan. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 have also questioned the maintainability of present petition.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. At present it is not disputed that Petitioner has already . completed his MBBS studies and according to the Petitioner's counsel after getting selected in competitive examination he joined the police force. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the following reported judgments:--
(1) Mehmood ul Hassan Khan v. Dow University of Health Sciences through Vice Chancellor (PLD 2008 Karachi 49 )
(2) Haleem ur Rehman v . Province of Sindh and others (2019 SCMR 1653 )
6. The recent judgment of honourable Supreme Court (ibid) has settled the controversy , by holding that when after getting admission in an educational institute, it a PRC is cancelled by an official, then in order to overcome uncertain consequences, a writ jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked, which in these particular circumstances, is the adequate and efficacious remedy . The apex Court has also clarified the distinction between a fake PRC and PRC which is cancelled by the government official. In the latter case, it is observ ed, that same cannot be made basis for cancellation of admission in a University , because Prospectus / Rules of Medical College provided a penalty of cancellation of admission in an event when PRC or other testimonials of a candidate are found to be fake. Learned Division Bench in the above case of Mehmood ul Hassan, has discussed in detail the issue of PRC vis--vis admission in an Educational Institution. While observing that right of admission to an educational institution cannot be restricted on the basis of ancestory of a candidate , being an irrelevant consideration, it is held that under Rule 6(ii)(b) of the Sindh Permanent Residence Rules 1971, a candidate becomes eligible for a certificate if he himself is domiciled in Sindh being a resident or got education for a period of not less than three
(03) years. It is further held as under:- "(iv).............
(v) That in any event the question of permanent residence in a Province or a District is to be determined on the basis of a factual inquiry under the Sindh Permanent Residence Rules 1971 and the factum of such permanent residence of student could be only relevant consideration for a candidate's admission into an institution of higher learning imposed through law made under the authority of a Provincial legislature and a certificate of domicile issued under the Citizenship Act either to a candidate or his parents is altogether irrelevant.
7. It may be pertinent to reproduce Rule 6, which reads as follows:-- "6. No person shall be eligible for grant of 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 born after the death of his father , the later , at the time of his death, was domiciled.
(b) 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 three years, except those employed by Central Government and autonomous/ semi-autonomous Corporations in whose case three years residence may be waived, provided the official furnished adequate evidence to prove that due to exigencies of service he was unable to fulfil that condition.
(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 has been recruite d to any specified service or post mentio ned in clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 2."
(Underlined for emphasis)
8. We have observed that following documents are part of Annexures with the petition which were never disputed by the Respondents with plausible reasons
(1) School Leaving Certificate by Iqra Academy showing that Petitioner was admitted on 9.5.1998 and left the School on 31.3.2001.
(2) Certificate issued by Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro/ Hyderabad Sindh certifying that Dr. Abdul Sami, father of Petitioner was resident at above named house.
(3) Certificate of Medical Registration dated 25.9.1991 issued by Regulator , viz. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council ( PMDC ) to Petitioner , showing his permanent address which is mentioned hereinabove.
(4) Heirship Certificate issued by Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Kotri dated 17.4.2007, inter alia, certifying that deceased father of Petitioner was a resident of the above house where he expired on 26.3.20 07 and has left behind wife and children, including the present Petitioner .
(5) Domicile Certificate issued by Executive District Officer inter alia, mentioning that Jamshoro is a place of domicile of Petitioner .
(6) Certificate issued of Permanent Residence in Form 'C' confirming that Petitione r was resident of above place of abode; however this certificate has been subsequently cancelled by way of the impugned order .
(7) Report of office of Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Kotri, dated 24.12.2008, inter alia, stating that the latter official personally visited the site and after conducting spot enquiry from neighbours, it was confirmed that Uzair Ahmed son of Abdul Sami (Petitioner) was residing at the above address since his birth . The Report is also based upon documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner which includes Service Pension Book of his late father and of his grandfather who was serving in Irrigation Department.
9. In the impugned Order all these facts have not been properly considered, or deliberately ignored. The above documents and the Reports of officials which are based on official documents and factual inquiry should have been considered. The rule laid down by various judicial pronouncements and particu larly the afore mentioned cited decisions are also applicable to the facts of present case; that, firstly the PRC of Petitioner was not a fake document; and, secondly , the Reports of other officials confirming that Petitioner was residing at the given address of Jamshbro, since his birth; which means that Petitioner is domiciled in Jamshoro for more than three (03) years and thus also fulfils the requirement of Rule 6(ii)(b). The specific averments in the petition about not giving a fair opportunity of hearing to Petitioner has also not been controverted by the Respondent No.1, entailing consequences.
10. In view of the above the impugned Decision is not sustainable and rather contrary to record because in the impugned Order the Respondent No.1 did not discuss any plausible document or material which led him to conclude that petitioner failed to prove his uninterrupted residence in Jamshoro for the last three (03) years.
Consequently , the impugned order is set aside and the Permanent Resident Certificate of Petitioner is restored.
The parties to bear their costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.