GUI ZAR AHMED, C.J .---W e have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that respondent No. 5 earlier had got employment as Lecturer on the domicile of Mohmand Agency but subsequently , he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector Legal in the settled area claiming himself to be the holder of domicile of Mardan. The appellant also applied for the post of Sub- Inspector Legal. Respondent No. 5 secured first position in the test and interview while appellant secured second position, as such, respondent, No. 5 was appointed as Sub-Inspector Legal. The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Peshawar High Court which vide impugned order dated 12.01.2010 was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the provision of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003, more specifically the Regulation No. 20(c) thereof.
4. We have considered such Regulation and have noted that clause (c) does not in any way help the case of the appellant in that it speaks of domicile once produced shall be final. Respondent No. 5 has obtained employment as Sub-Inspector Legal by producing domicile of Mandan and apparently , when such domicile is produced by respondent No. 5 it stood final.
5. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 5 was also having domicile of Mohmand Agency , is concerned, we note that clause (g) of Regulation No. 20 makes provision for renouncement of domicile of settled District for obtaining of category 'B' domicile of Mohmand Agency . No such requirement apparently is mentioned in the Regulation for obtaining of domicile of settled area.
6. In any case, once respondent No. 5 has produced the domicile of Mardan, its implication is that he has renounced the domicile of Mohmand Agency and no more remains the resident of the said Agency . We note that it is not the case of the appellant that respondent No. 5 has obtained domicile certificate from Mardan through malpractice or making of mis-declaration. No such contention has been raised nor any material to that effect is available on the record.
7. The High Court in the impugned order has dealt with the matter in accordance with law and we see no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.