' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- The petitioners in all these four petitions passed their Intermediate (pre- medical) Examination from the Board of Intermediate Education Karachi and obtained Certificates of 'Domicile' and 'Permanent Residence Certificates' from District Magistrates of different districts of Karachi in September-October, 1998 for the purpose of admission to an educational institution in Sindh. Nevertheless, soon thereafter they also applied to District Magistrates in different Districts of Punjab i,e, Faisalabad in C.P. No,657 of 1999, Lahore in C.P. No,658 of 1999 and Chakwal in C.P. No,659 of 1999 in C.P. No,660 of 1999. Such certificates were issued and on the basis whereof the petitioners applied for admission in King Edwards Medical College, Lahore.
2. However, apparently upon being unsuccessful and opening of admissions in Medical Colleges in Sindh the petitioners applied to the. Respective District Magistrates in Punjab for cancellation of their Domicile Certificates. The certificates issued to the petitioner in C.P. No,659 of 1999 and C.P.
No,660 of 1999 were apparently cancelled on 11-12-1998. The one granted to the petitioner in C.P.
No,658 of 1999 was cancelled as late as 17-3-1999. It is not known when the certificate issued to the petitioner in C.P. No,657 of 1999, if at all was cancelled. However, an undated application on her behalf with the endorsement of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G)/Collector, Faisalabad, dated 4-1-999 requiring the domicile clerk to process and put up the same has been placed on record. Nevertheless, all the petitioners applied for admission in Dow Medical College, Karachi, during the last week of December, 1998 and 1st week of January, 1999. Such applications were apparently accompanied by affidavits to the effect that the deponent was the holder of a P.R.C.
Issued on the basis from a particular district, had applied for admission against a merit seat of that district on the basis of the above domicile/P.R.C. And did not hold permanent residence of any other District in Sindh and had not applied for admission in any other medical college against the merit seat of any other District. On the basis of the aforesaid application forms and documents which apparently included the original domicile and permanent residence certificates issued to the petitioners by different District Magistrates of Karachi they were allowed to appear in the entrance test.
3. However, on 2-2-1999 the respondent No,2 (Principal Dow Medical College) received a fax .Message from the Principal. King Edwards Medical College, Lahore, stating that a number of students, including all the petitioners, who had passed their Intermediate Examination from Board of Intermediate Education in Sindh Province, had applied for admission in the aforesaid college and requested that it be communicated whether any of them had also applied for admission at the Dow Medical College, Karachi. On receiving such information the Selection Board of the respondent No,2, found the petitioners disqualified and ineligible for admission. Aggrieved by the above the petitioners have moved this Court.
4. Mr. Muhammad Zahid Khan learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Certificates of Domicile and permanent Residence granted to the petitioners in September/October, 1998 on the basis of their several years' residence in Karachi could not be cancelled or deemed to have become inoperative upon their acquisition of domicile from different Districts in Punjab. He argued that once the petitioners fulfilled the requisite qualifications for grant of such certificates from more than one District they were entitled to be considered as domiciles and permanent residents of all the Districts. Alternatively, he contended that the petitioners having surrendered their domicile of districts in Punjab they were entitled to admission in Karachi on the basis of the domicile certificate and P.R.C. Issued by the respective District Magistrates earlier. In any event respondent No,2 had no authority to cancel the certificate issued by the District Magistrates and could not refuse admission unless the certificates were duly cancelled by competent Authority. In support of his contention he referred to the cases of Khalid Shaikh v. Principal and. Chairman Academic Council PLD 1987 Kar.
253, Noor Fatima v. Alia Mueed and others PLD. 1988 Lah. 437 and Ahmed Hassan v. Abdullah and others PLD 1992 Pesh.
1.
5. We have heard carefully the contentions of the learned counsel and gone through the judgments cited by him, but regret to say they are not helpful to this case and we do not find any merit in his line of reasoning. In the first place it must be reiterated that domicile certificates issued by District Magistrate for enabling a person to be admitted into a professional College against seats reserved for that District area are altogether different from those required to be issued under the Pakistan Citizenship Act. In Muhammad Yar Khan, v. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Political Agent, Loralai 1980 SCMR 456, the Honourable Supreme Court observed:--- "Now from the analysis of all these sections, as well as section 17 of the Act what would follow is (1) that domicile and permanent residence are two distinct and separate concepts, although before a person is granted a domicile certificate generally he mutt show that he had lived in Pakistan with the intention of permanently residing therein: (2) that when a person is granted a domicile certificate he would be deemed to be a domicile or Pakistan and not of a Province or a part of a Province (3) the fact that a person before making an application for the grant of a domicile certificate had lived in Pakistan would be entitled to persuade the authorities that he had done so with the intention of permanently residing therein and he was entitled to the grant to a domicile certificate; and (4) that a citizen of Pakistan by birth is also essentially a domicile of Pakistan unless, of course, he has lost the said domicile by acquiring another domicile of his choice."
6. In the aforesaid case, however, their Lordships proceeded to hold that when the petitioner applied for grant of a domicile certificate to a District Magistrate of a particular District on the strength whereof his son could obtain admission in the Engineering College against seats reserved for that District he must be held to have actually claimed to the permanent resident of that District.
Similarly a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Noor Fatima v. Alia Mueed PLD 1988 Lah. 437, cited by Mr. Zahid Khan himself, the Court followed the aforesaid judgment and held that the certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, was in fact a certificate of, permanent residence, though the granting authority described it as a domicile certificate which was a misnomer, and therefore, the precondition laid down in the Citizenship Act and rules were not required to be met.
7. The distinction between domicile and residence has also been lucidly drawn though in a somewhat different context in Shaikh Muhammad Rashid v. Zarnigar Qaiser Shaikh PLD 1980 Lah. 61 where Aftab Hussain, J. While interpreting section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act held that while domicile of a person is a question of legal status and may be question of law, ordinary residence is altogether a question of fact. In Mehrunnisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi PLD 1978 Kar.
214 the position in the context of Sindh Permanent Residence Rules has been clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in the following words:-- "For the grant of a domicile certificate under section 17 of the Citizenship Act all that is necessary is that the applicant was ordinarily residing in Pakistan for specified period and has intention to make Pakistan his place of abode and, therefore, the fact that in the prescribed form there is a column of place of domicile appears to be of not much importance. At best it is a piece of evidence in favour of an applicant for permanent residence certificate. It is not conclusive against either the District Magistrate or the Appellate Committee for under the said Rules, they are obliged to ascertain for themselves whether a person is a permanent resident of a particular District and if the Appellate Committee has in the present case not chosen to rely on this piece of evidence it cannot be said that they have acted illegally."
8. In the same judgment it was explained that mere eligibility to apply for permanent residence certificate was not enough for the grant thereof and a factual inquiry as to the permanent residence had to be undertaken in the following words:- "An applicant seeking a seat from a particular District has to establish that he is a permanent resident of that District and this he does by obtaining a certificate in Form 'C'. If Rule 6 is read in isolation then an applicant born in Sindh can obtain the certificate if his father was at the time of the applicant's birth domiciled in Sindh, which would mean that it would be sufficient if his father has his home or abode in any District of Sindh. The result would be that an applicant born in Sindh armed with his father's Sindh domicile can obtain a certificate in Form 'C' -and seek admission in one of the reserved seats of a District in Sindh though he may not be a permanent resident of that district. This would make the District-wise reservation of seats redundant. This is not the intent of Rule 6 for more than one reason. Rule 6 speaks of eligibility for grant of certificate in Form 'C' and not that its compliance will entitle the applicant to the grant of the certificate. In other words even if a person is a permanent resident of a particular District or area in Sindh, he would not be entitled to a certificate unless he complies with the preconditions laid down in Rule 6. Rules have to be read as a whole and so read it is clear that firstly the applicant must be a person who is eligible for grant of a certificate under Rule 6 and this certificate will, under Rule 5(2), be issued to him by the District Magistrate of the area where the applicant is permanently residing after being satisfied under Rule 4 that the applicant is a permanent resident of his District and, therefore, entitled to a certificate."
9. From the above it appears quite plain that while domicile being a question of legal status, a person may well-qualify to be a domicile of two different countries if he so qualifies under the appropriate rules, permanent residence is a pure question of fact and a person cannot be assumed to be a permanent resident of two different areas. In the circumstances we find no substance in Mr. Muhammad Zahid Khan's contention to the contrary.
10. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General supported the impugned action with reference to Rule 7(8) of the Rules of Admission, which provides that any candidate found using domicile/P.R.C. Of more than one District shall be disqualified for admission in any medical college in the Sindh Province. He also pointed out that Rule 22 stipulated that all admissions were provisional subject to verification of documents submitted by the candidates and if at any stage it be proved that admissions have been secured on the basis of false/incorrect documents, admissions would be cancelled and under Rule 23 such candidate would be debarred from admission in any medical college in Sindh and also be liable for prosecution. While we have not gone into the question whether Rule 22 or 23 can be attracted as prima facie no false document has been alleged to have been relied upon, it is quite plain that Rule 7(g) has been violated. In view of the limited seats available in medical colleges set-up by the Government admission is highly competitive and to ensure that citizens from all areas have a reasonable chance, the concerned authorities have prescribed rules and policies stipulating that residents of one area should only apply from one Selection Centre, even if he prepare to avail a seat in another college on reciprocal basis itself. Unfortunately the petitioners in their ambition to secure admission by fair or foul means obtained certificates to be able to apply for admission both in Punjab and Sindh. Even if we were to hold that they were for all intents and purposes permanent residents of Karachi (and prima facie it appears to be so), mere fact that they chose to declare themselves otherwise for securing admission in Punjab is, apart from the specification in the Rules, sufficient to disentitle them to claim relief under the equitable jurisdiction conferred upon the Court by Article 199 of the Constitution. We are, therefore, inclined to dismiss all these petitions in limine.
11. Nevertheless, before parting with this judgment, we are constrained to observe that a great amount of confusion is being, created by the insistence of the authorities not to act in accordance with law declared by the superior Courts including the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and continue using terminology in awarding certificates which is not relevant, though fortunately Permanent Residence Rules are available in Sindh similar Rules do not appear to have been framed by the Punjab Government and though District Magistrate are required to certify for all intents and purposes that a candidate is a resident of a particular District in the Province after factual inquiry, they appear to issue domicile certificates on the basis of requirements of Pakistan Citizenship Act, which are not relevant in this context. Since all authorities are mandated to act in aid of the Supreme Court the Punjab Government may be well-advised to frame appropriate rules to ensure that admissions are secured according to Rules. Moreover, even in Sindh, though a domicile requirement may be necessary to make a candidate eligible to apply for P.R.C. Under Rule 6 of the Sindh Permanent Residents Rules, a certificate cannot be granted mechanically without an inquiry under Rule 4. It may be appropriate for the respondent No,1 to issue directions to District Magistrates in this context. A copy of this judgment may be communicated to the Health Secretaries to Government of Sindh and Punjab.