1. IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 19-6-1996 of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing Constitution Petition No.373 of 1995.
2. 2 The brief facts are that Miss Dur-e-Sameen, petitioner herein, is the daughter of petitioner No.2.
3. She applied for admission in Bolan Medical College for the Academic Year 1994-95 against one of the seats reserved for Loralai District on the basis of her father's domicile certificate issued on 10-6- -1975. During the course of interview by the Selection Committee, objections were raised on the permanent residence of petitioner No.1 by the candidates from Loralai District. The Selection Committee referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai for holding an inquiry. The Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Assistant Commissioner being the Chairman of the Domicile Committee, Loralai. Thereafter, on receipt of the inquiry report, the Selection Committee rejected the application of petitioner No. l on the ground that her father was resident of Dera Ismail Khan District and not of Loralai District but he managed to get a domicile from Loralai District.
4. 3 The petitioner challenged the decision of the Selection Committee through a Constitution petition but the Baluchistan High Court dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioners failed to rebut the facts which were duly considered by the Selection Committee and that it had neither acted in an arbitrary manner nor capriciously in rejecting the application of the petitioner.
5. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners gave the background in which domicile certificate was issued to the father of petitioner No. l stating therein that the father of petitioner No. 1, i.e. Petitioner No.2 had obtained Diploma in Civil Engineering from NED Engineering College, Karachi in 1959.
6. Thereafter, he had been appointed as Sub-Engineer in B & R Department, Quetta on 8-2-1962.
7. However, consequent upon dissolution of Province of West Pakistan by Province of West Pakistan Dissolution Order, 1970 (P.O.
1. Of 1970), administrative decisions were taken before the appointed day i.e. 1-7-1970, like allocation of civil servants working in various Provinces. But no decision was taken to allocate petitioner No.2 to his Province of origin (N.-W.F.P.). On the contrary he was promoted as Sub-Divisional Officer on 17-4-1974 and his services were regularised vide notification dated 31-5-1978.
8. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of his service in Baluchistan since 1962, petitioner No.2 decided to settle down permanently in Baluchistan. He also applied for grant of domicile Certificate of Loralai District on 10-6-1975 as he had chosen Loralai as his permanent place of residence. , Therefore, the High Court erred in holding that petitioner No.2 was a resident of N.-W.F.P. These points were also urged before the High Court which were repelled. Para. 7 of the impugned judgment reads thus:-- "The main ground urged by Mr. Chishti was that the domicile of the father of petitioner is intact which had been issued to him during the period when he was serving at Loralai. Therefore, the petitioner No. l was entitled to get benefit of the said domicile certificate against the reserved seats of District Loralai. We enquired from Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti whether Manzoor Hussain had permanently settled at Loralai or whether petitioner No.1 Dur-e-Sameen had ever studied in any institution of Loralai, the reply was in negative. We further enquired from learned counsel if Manzoor Hussain has any property or house in Loralai in order to settle after retirement, the reply was that he has applied for a plot last year but has not received one. The undenied factual position being that Dur-e-Sameen right from primary school up to F.Sc had got her entire education from educational institutions at Quetta. She has never been to Loralai. As far as Manzoor Hussain is concerned he has also never gone to Loralai after his transfer. It has further come to our notice that Manzoor Hussain belongs to Dera Ismail Khan in the Province of N.-W.F.P. He was inducted in service in. N.W.F.P. In the year 1990 when the Government of Baluchistan decided to repatriate the employees of other Provinces, the petitioner No. 2 Manzoor Hussain was ordered to be repatriated to N.-W. F. P., his Province of domicile. This is evident from the notification issued by Chief Secretary, Government of Baluchistan dated 9th May, 1990 No.3-11/76-Coord: S&GAD. Vol. II. At S. No.1 whereof we find name of Manzoor Hussain who was SDO in C & W Department and place of domicile is clearly mentioned as D.I. Khan. Another important aspect is that according to his own admission Manzoor Hussain retired from the service in March, 1996 and he never went to Loralai after retirement. "
9. 6 The sole question for determination in this petition, therefore, is as to what was the domicile of the petitioner at the relevant the. The Admission Committee on the basis of overwhelming evidence available before it recorded a finding of fact that petitioner No. l was neither permanently residing in Loralai nor acquired a valid domicile. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of Baluchistan High Court accepting these findings also took the view that the domicile of petitioner No. l was not Loralai. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any intention of making Loralai their permanent home. Suffice it to say that mere fact that the petitioner No.2 had joined service in Baluchistan is not by itself conclusive evidence of his intention to settle permanently in Loralai. For the acquisition of a domicile of choice, there must be a combination of residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence before that change can become effective. Refer Rule 7, Chapter 11 of Dicey's Conflict of Laws, 6th Edition, page 89. The same principle was reiterated in Joan Mary Carter v. Albert William Carter (PLD 1961 SC 616). Also refer Miss Amtul Naseer Sami v. Secretary Health, Government of Baluchistan (1975 SCM R 265), wherein at page 267 Anwarul Haq, J. Observed as follows:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to the case of Muhammad Bibi v. Abdul Ghani (PLD 1975 Kar.. 979) in support of his contention that the mere obtaining of a domicile certificate by Iftikhar Ahmad's father would not make him a bona fide resident of Baluchistan. We do not see how this decision is of any avail to the petitioner. We find that on page 3 of the report the learned Judge has adopted with approval the observation of Lord Macmillan in the case of Ramsay v. Liverpool Royal (1930 AC 588) to the effect that the residence must answer a qualitative as well as a quantitative test, and that the Courts have regarded naturalization purchase of house or burial ground exercise of political rights, financial expectations, establishment of children in business, the place where a man's wife and family reside as indication of his intentions in regard to residence. "
10. 7 In the instant case, the facts found by the Selection Committee upon which the judgment of the High Court is based are that neither the petitioner nor her father had ever gone to Loralai after 1975.
11. On this finding the High Court was right in holding that petitioner No. l was not eligible to the seat reserved for . Loralai District 8 Be that as it may, the question, whether or not petitioner No.1 had acquired domicile in Loralai is a disputed question of fact. Clearly the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction normally would not adjudicate upon such questions. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show that the order of the Selection Committee or the impugned judgment of the High Court is based on misreading of evidence or disregard of any material evidence on record.
12. Resultantly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.