FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The common grievance in these two Petitions is the cancellation of the Permanent Residents Certificates issued to -the petitioners by the District Magistrate, Thatta, by the Appellate Committee set up by the Sind Government under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules"). The certificates issued by the District Magistrate are in prescribed Form 'C' for the purpose of securing admission to an educational institution in Sind and recite in each case that the petitioner had a permanent residence in Thatta District and that "the applicant is a "bona fide resident of this district by virtue of a birth". The petitioners, it may be mentioned had not claimed the certificate on the ground that they were born in Thatta District nor it is factually so.
2. In the case of petitioner, Mehrunnissa the Appellate Committee gave ::following reasons for cancelling her certificate :- "From the arguments of the parties and the documents produced it is clear to the Committee that Mehrunnissa and her father as original residents of Dadu District now living in Hyderabad. She cannot claim the permanent residence of Thatta District merely on the basis of her father owning agricultural land there having lived there for some years in the past. The grant of-P. R. C. To her elder sister could not be quoted as a precedent for extending to her the same treatment because in that year, it is believed, the number of seats for the district reserved for girls was more than the candidates, hence no one was aggrieved. There is no evidence of the girl having ever lived in Thatta. The domicile certificate of Thatta district issued to her father in 1974, did not entitle her to the P. R. C. Of that district for which the condi--tions are different and more stringent."
3. The reasons for cancelling the certificate of the other petitioner Shahnaa Akhtar read as follows - - "Having heard the arguments of the two sides and seen documents produced by them, the Committee came to the conclusion that Shahnaz Akhtar and her parents were residents of Karachi where the family had vested interest. The mere ownership of 33 acres of agricultural land in Thatta district did not entitle her to P. R. C. Of that place, especially when even the house on the land belonged to the uncle of the girl.
The P. R. C. Of Thatta district granted to Shahnaz Akhtar daughter of Mohammad Islam is cancelled.
"
4. Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim Memon, the learned counsel for the peti--tioners in both the petitions challenged the orders made by the Committee on the ground that the refusal was not justified under the said Rules. Under Rule 2, no person is eligible for admission to a Medical College in Sing unless he furnishes to the authority competent to make admission, a certificate of his permanent residence in Sind from the District Magistrate of the area where he is permanently residing. Under rule 4, if the District Magistrate is satisfied after holding such enquiry as he deem necessary, that the applicant is entitled to a certificate of permanent residence for the purpose of admission to a Medical College, he shall issue to the applicant certificate in the prescrib--ed Form 'C'. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, provides what the Certificate shall specify the district or other local area in Sind of which the holder of the Certificate is a permanent resident. Rule 6 on which the petitioners base their claim reads as follows :- "No Person shall be eligible for the grant of a certificate in Form 'C' unless -
(i) he was born in any area forming part of Sind and further-
(a) in the case of a person of legitimate birth, at the time of his birth, his father was domiciled in Sind or if he was born after the death of his death was domiciled in Sind ; or
(b) in the case of a person of illegitimate birth, his mother at the time of his birth, was domiciled in Sind ; or
(ii) in the case of a person who was not born in Sind-
(a) his parents are domiciled in Sind, and have resided in Sind for a period not less than 3 years : or
(b) if his parents are not domiciled in Sind, he is domiciled in Sind, and further has either resided in Sind or has been educated in Sind for a period of not less than 3 years ; or
(iii) his father or mother is in the service of the Government of Sind, and has put to not less than one year service as such."
5. We at the outset pointed out to the learned counsel that whether or not a person was a permanent resident of a particular district or local area in Sind was a question of fact depending upon evidence to be appreciated firstly by the District Magistrate and in appeal, under rule 8 by the Com--mittee, and since in the present case the Committee has found as a fact that the petitioners are not permanent residents of Thatta district there appears to be no scope for interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. To this the answer of the leaned counsel was that if it is demonstrated that under the said Rules the petitioners were entitled to the grant of permanent residence certificates on admitted facts, the petitioners will be entitled to obtain a declaration from this Court that the impugned order made by the Committee is of no legal effect.
In support of his argument the learned counsel relied on rule 6 and went on to argue that as the petitioners were admittedly born in Sind and their father possessed Sind domicile they, therefore, became eligible for the grant of a certificate under the aforesaid rule 6.
6. The question, however, is whether a person who comes within the requirement of rule 6, and no more, is entitled to a Permanent Residence Certificate. The object of Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules is obvious and that is to enable the Government to give effect to what is Popu-- larly known the quota system. Under the College Prospectus seats are reserved district-wise with a view to encourage students from what is being referred to as backward areas of the Province. 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 Sind can obtain the certificate if his father was at the time of the applicant's birth domiciled in Sind, which would mean that it would be sufficient if his father has his home or abode in any district of Sins. The result would be that an applicant born in Sind armed with his father's Sind domicile can obtain a certificate in Form 'C' and seek admission in one of the reserved seats of a district in Sind though he may not be a permanent resident of that district This would make the district-wise reservation of coats 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 Sind. 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 role 4 that the applicant is a permanent resident of his district and, therefore, entitled to a certificate.
7. Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim Memon, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court reported in Azizur Rehman v. Domicile Scruitiny Committee PLD 1975 Kar. 1039, in which the view expressed is "That an applicant for the grant of Permanent Residence Certificate under one or more of the categories listed in rule 6 of the Rules, whichever may suitably apply to him."
8. The decision only apparently helps the learned counsel for this Court did not proceed to grant the Permanent Residence Certificate on the above basis but remanded the case to the Committee for rehearing and the Committee was, therefore, not only bound to consider the Court's observation on rule 6 but also the mandatory requirements of rules 2, 4 and 5 of the said Rules.
9. Mr. Ibrahim Memon then went on to argue that the father of the petitioners in both the cases had a domicile certificate granted to them under section 17 of the Citizenship Act which expressly states that their place of domicile was Thatta district. Now, in so far as the Citizenship Act is concer--ned, domicile certificate is granted when the concerned authority is satisfied that the applicant has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year immediately before the making of the application and has acquired domicile therein. Therefore, the domicile of which section 17 speaks for is rot of a particular area in Pakistan but of Pakistan. This is further clear from the following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Joan Mary Carter w. Albert William Carter PLD 1961 SC 616, to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Abdul Hafiz Lakho, the learned Additional Advocate General:- "Reverting now to the question of the respondent's domicile of origin we are constrained to observe that the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench have fallen into error in thinking that a person cannot be domiciled in a country unless his domicile can be fixed at some particular place in that country and, therefore, have not taken into account the fact that the Indian domicile which the respondent is said to have acquired on birth was really a British Indian domicile and not a domicile confined to any particular place in British India or to any particular territory which is now compromised in India"
10. Mr. Ibrahim Memon pointed out that in the prescribed form (P/1) of certificate of domicile particulars of place of domicile of the applicant have to be given and in the case of the petitioners' respective fathers !t is shown as Thatta district. The domicile certificate of the father of the petitioner Mehrunnissa is dated 2-11-1974 and that of Shahnaz Akhtar's father is dated 6-1-1977. It was contended that since these certificates have not been with--drawn or revoked, the petitioners as minors hold their respective father's place of domicile, namely, Thatta District. Now, it is clear to me that if the intention was to base the grant of permanent residence certificate on the domicile certificate of the applicants' parents it was not necessary to provide for any enquiry by the District Magistrate under rule 4 to ascertain the place of permanent residence of the applicant. In fact, the said Rules need not have come into existence for the domicile certificate of the parents would have been sufficient for the purpose of seeking admission to medical college in one of the district wise reserved seats. The domicile certificate unlike the permanent residence certificate is not open to challenge by an aggrieved person. 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 Com--mittee 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. The Committee has for relevant considerations, which are not open to appraisal by us, found that the applicants are not permanent residents of Thatta District. There is, therefore, as was argued by the learned Additional Advocate-General and Mr. Nooruddin Sarki for the non-official respondent, no room for our interference in our Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
11. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed but In the circumstances there will be no order as to cost.