IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

C.P No.D-2095 of 2018

Petitioner: Adnan Ahmed Memon, through M/s. Fiduallah Qureshi and Badaruddin Memon, Advocates.

Respondents No. 5 to 9: M/s. Malik Naeem Iqbal, Muhammad Nasir and Deedar Ali M. Chohan, Advocates.

SPSC/Respondent No. 2,3 &4: Through Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Alvi, Law Officer

Province of Sindh: Through Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Naich, AAG

Date of hearing: 23.12.2021

Date of decision: 23.12.2021

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks declaration against the acts of Respondents regarding non-verifying the previous false domiciles and testimonial documents of the persons, who belong to other provinces and removing their names from the merit list as well as consolidated lists/result of CCE, 2013; besides initiate enquiry in respect of illegalities and irregularities committed by the Respondents with malafide intentions and ulterior motives by issuing appointment orders to the candidates on Sindh Urban Quota, having fake/multiple domiciles of other provinces and to issue fresh appointment order to the petitioner as per fresh updated merit and consolidated lists/result. The petitioner therefore prays as under:-

a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the act of the respondents by not verifying the false Domicile &testimonial documents of the persons, who belongs to other Provinces from (a) to (d) mentioned in the Ground No.11 supra and removing their names from the merit as well as consolidated Lists/Result of CCE 2013 [Annexure “E and F”] and other qualified candidates (if any) is illegal, unlawful and against the norms of justice, hence the said act of the respondents may be declared as null and void.

b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call the respondents in persons before this Hon’ble Court and enquire about their illegal act by not verifying the previous fake/multiple Domiciles of other Provinces and other testimonial documents of said persons (a) to (d) mentioned in Ground No.11 supra and others (if any).

c) That this Hon’able Court may be pleased to initiate enquiry in respect of illegalities and irregularities committed by the respondents with malafide intention and some ulterior motives by not verifying or removing the names of the persons (a) to (d) mentioned supra from the merit as well as consolidate lists [Annexure “E and F”] through reputed Agencies viz FIA or NAB, so that they may conduct the enquiry in respect of corrupt practices of the respondents and misuse of authority by recommending the appointment of the persons, who were/are in possession of the fake/multiple Domiciles of Sindh Urban.

d) That this Hon’able Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to republish/update the merit as well as Consolidated Lists/Results of CCE 2013 [Annexure “E and F”] after removing the names of the persons (a) to (d) mentioned in Ground No.11 supra, who are in possession of the fake/multiple Domiciles of other Provinces, and then to issue fresh appointment order to the petitioner as per fresh updated merit and consolidated lists/result.

e) That this Hon’able Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from issuing the Appointment Orders to Successful Candidates of Sindh Urban Quota till the finalization of the merit a well as consolidate list be updated after verifying and removing the names of persons, who belong to other Provinces from (a) to (d) mentioned in Ground No.11 supra, and other (if any), through themselves or any other competent authority of Government of Sindh, either directly or indirectly, till the final decision of the instant petition in hand before this Hon’able court.

f) That this Hon’able Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to withheld the appointment order of the petitioner as Assistant Director Labor (BPS-17) on the Sindh Urban Quota till final decision of the instant petition and then to issue fresh appointment order to the petitioner as per updated merit and consolidate lists/result.

g) To grant any other relief which deems it and proper under the circumstances of the petition.

h) To award the cost of petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the very outset, contended that Respondents had advertised the different vacant posts in Government of Sindh to be filled through Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) 2013 of Sindh Public Service Commission vide advertisement No.08/2013 dated 02.07.2013; that petitioner being qualified candidate had applied in the said examination on Sindh Urban Quota by completing all codal formalities; that SPSC conducted screening test wherein 2813 number of candidates participated in said process and out of which 664 candidates were declared successful; besides their interviews were conducted; that meanwhile, a written application was forwarded by one Muhammad Junaid Farooqui before Hon’ble Supreme Court at Islamabad stating therein that grave irregularities were committed by the Chairman, Members and Officers of Sindh Public Service Commission in said examination process and after hearing of such matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court nullified the said examination (CCE 2013) and directed SPSC to conduct re-examination; that thereafter SPSC again conduct written test as well as viva-voce whereby 182 candidates including petitioner were declared successful and the name of the Petitioner was recommended for the post of Assistant Director, Labor (BPS-17) at Serial No.3 in merit list of Sindh Urban; that thereafter a consolidated merit list was published on SPSC website wherein name of the petitioner was kept at Serial No.57 on Sindh Urban Quota; that thereafter it has come into knowledge of the petitioner that Respondents have malafidely violated the merits of Sindh Urban Candidates, which downgraded the petitioner in merits as well as consolidate lists and recommended the candidates/ private Respondents, who were in possession of multiple/fake domiciles of Sindh Urban. The said irregularity was also highlighted in newspapers through news clippings; that in this regard, petitioner approached to the Respondents/SPSC to declare the appointments of those candidates, who are in possession of multiple/fake domiciles of Sindh Urban, as illegal by removing their names from merit as well as consolidated lists/result and to update the same but no heed was paid; he next contended that an enquiry may be initiated against those candidates through well reputed agencies viz. NAB or FIA so that truth should be come on surface; that due to such irregularity, the fundamental right of the Petitioner has been curtailed as if those candidates/private Respondents are declared unsuccessful then petitioner’s name may be upgraded and as per seniority he may be recommended for another post, hence this petition.

3. Learned Counsel representing the Respondents/SPSC argued that earlier SPSC had announced 182 posts through Combined Competitive Examination-2013 vide advertisement No.08/2013 wherein 664 candidates were declared successful; however said process was assailed before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court nullified the same due to grave irregularities identified in such process; that thereafter re-examination was conducted wherein 182 candidates including petitioner were declared successful and the petitioner was allocated for the post of Assistant Director, Labor (BPS-17) on Urban Quota; that insofar as the allegation of the Petitioner against the private Respondents, having multiple/fake domiciles of Sindh Urban, the department had enquired from concerned departments regarding genuineness of domiciles or otherwise and the same were found without any substance of truth. In the end, he submitted that the allegations of the Petitioner regarding multiple/fake domiciles of the private Respondents are baseless and carry no weight in the eyes of law as detailed inquiry has been conducted and in this regard department/SPSC wrote letters to concerned Deputy Commissioners regarding verification of domiciles and in reply they submitted that their domiciles are genuine; besides Petitioner has failed to produce any authentic/ solid proof or evidence against the private Respondents, hence this petition is liable to be dismissed as the same does not contain any merits for consideration.

4. Learned Counsel for the private Respondents No.5 to 9, at the very outset, submitted that the purpose of issuing domicile to any person(s) is only for declaring residence as provided under Section 6 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951; while arguing the matter, learned counsel has referred to Rule 8 of Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. It is next contended that allegations with regard to keeping domicile certificates of other provinces are baseless as some of the Respondents are permanent resident of Sindh Urban and in this regard their birth certificates are attached with the reply; besides those Respondents, who had retain domiciles of other districts, have surrendered their earlier domiciles prior to applying in CCE-Examination, 2013; that SPSC/Respondents have also probed/verified their domicile certificates from concerned Deputy Commissioners, who refuted the allegations of the petitioner and submitted their details reports regarding genuineness of their domiciles, hence this petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned AAG representing the Respondent No.1 submitted that earlier process of appointment as stated above was declared null and void by Hon’ble Supreme Court; however on the directions of Apex Court such process was conducted freshly and transparently wherein 182 candidates including present petitioner have been recommended and their appointments were made as per seniority list on Sindh Urban Quota; however the allegations of petitioner regarding appointments of private Respondents, who were in possession of multiple/fake domiciles, were verified/probed from concerned Deputy Commissioners and in reply they furnished their respective reports wherein they categorically mentioned that some of the Respondents are permanently resident of Province of Sindh and some of them had surrendered their earlier domiciles hence such allegations are baseless. While confronted appointment of Respondent No.5 namely Imran Ali, learned AAG submitted that matter was communicated to legal department for opinion to which they tendered its opinion vide letter dated 03.05.2019. Lastly, learned AAG submitted that the allegations of the Petitioner regarding issuance of appointment orders to those candidates/private Respondents, having multiple/fake domiciles require no consideration as their testimonials have been verified/probed diligently from concerned Deputy Commissioners, who have refuted the allegations of having multiple/fake domiciles, therefore, resulting this petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the Assistant Advocate General of Sindh and perused the available record with their able assistance.

7. After hearing the parties the only issue before us is that whether the private respondents were holding multiple/bogus domicile certificates; and whether on the basis of such domicile certificates they were appointed on their respective posts. Therefore the case of each respondent is discussed as under:-

7(1). (a). Respondent No. 5, Imran Ali s/o Haji Hassan Ali Khan:

i. Petitioner’s case against him is that he has applied and selected as lecturer through SPSC Quota of Sindh Rural District Ghotki by submitting the domicile and PRC of Sindh Rural, whereas he had applied presently on the basis of domicile and PRC of Sindh Urban (Karachi East). Therefore he was not entitled for the appointment as he was already holding domicile and PRC of Sindh Rural.

ii. The respondent No.5 defended himself and submitted that he belongs to District Ghotki which is his native place and got education there as well as obtained domicile and PRC from the District Ghotki as Sindh Rural. However after completing some academic years at District Ghotki, he shifted to Karachi and started education in Karachi University. He purchased the flat in Karachi and permanently resides there. He qualified BS (English) degree program and the degree was awarded to him in the year 2011. He applied on the basis of his pervious domicile of District Ghotki and was appointed as lecturer. Thereafter he decided to reside on permanent basis in Karachi, and surrendered the domicile of Sindh Rural obtained from District Ghotki and applied for the Domicile of Sindh Urban from Karachi East and after obtaining the same he applied for the subject post.

iii. The respondent No.1 filed comments in which he in respect of respondent No.5 stated that the Deputy Commissioner East was requested to verify Domicile and PRC of Mr. Imran Ali s/o Haji Hassan Ali (CNIC No.45104-45081303-1) and to furnish report, vide letter dated 14.01.2019. In reply the Deputy Commissioner Karachi East vide his letter dated 15.01.2019, furnished report that the said Domicile / PRC are found genuine. Further it was stated that Mr. Imran Ali submitted an application for issuance of his Offer letter, as he had surrendered his Rural domicile of District Ghotki and got domicile of District East, Karachi and had applied in CCE-2013 after surrendering the previous domicile. Necessary report regarding surrender of Domicile by Mr. Imran Ali was called from the Deputy Commissioner Ghotki, vide letter dated 17.01.2019 and the same was furnished. In reply, the Deputy Commissioner Ghotki @ Mirpur Mathelo vide letter dated 22.01.2019 reported that the Certificate of Domicile bearing No.L-787 dated 17.04.2006, PRC Form “C” bearing No.761, dated 29.04.2006 and PRC Form “D” bearing No.S-896, dated 07.02.2013 were surrendered by Imran vide Order No.386 / 2013 dated 06.06.2013. On complaint against Mr. Imran Ali opinion from the law deportment was sought and was received under the letter dated 03.05.2019 which is reproduced as under:-

“Having examined this case, Law Department is of the opinion that the applicant officially surrendered the rural domicile and obtained urban domicile from district Administration by following the laid down procedure lawfully. Hence, his urban domicile should be accepted for his new appointment and afterward requirements”.

iv. We have examined rule 5 and 7(2) of the Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, which provides that “A certificate of Permanent Residence in Sindh, for the purpose of (a), admission to an educational institution shall be issued in Form “C”; and (b) recruitment to the Public Service shall be issued in Form “D”. It also provides that “the certificate shall specify the District or other local area in Sindh of which the holder of the certificate is a permanent resident.” The rule 7 (2) provides that “A person who is domiciled in or has acquired a domicile of another Province shall not be granted a certificate in Form “D”, unless he renounces such domicile and produce satisfactory evidence before the District Magistrate of such renunciation.” The respondents No.2 and 4 also filed their comments and in para No. 11 it is stated that “It is respectfully submitted that Sindh Public Service Commission scrutinized/ examined the Domiciles/PRCs which they produced before the commission and allocated them as per their domiciles in the merit list of re-scheduled Combined Competitive Examination-2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the Commission has received many complaints regarding authenticity of domiciles which have been verified/probed into and are found without any substance of truth.”

7(2). (b). Respondent No.6 Danish Butt Mehmood s/o Fayyaz

Mehmood

i. Case of the petitioner against this respondent is that he was appointed as Excise and Taxation Officer on Sindh Urban Quota; though he is possessing multiple domiciles which is evident from the fact that he had appeared on Quetta Domicile in PSC of Baluchistan for the posts of Assistant Commissioner/Section Officer under Roll No.2188 so also it was published in newspaper that he is also having Domicile of Province of Punjab as such recommendation of Sindh Public Service Commission for this candidate for the said post on Sindh Urban Domicile is illegal.

ii. Respondent No.6 Danish Butt Mehmood filed parawise comments in which he has denied the allegations. He submitted that he was born in Karachi, got all his education there, as well as got his CNIC, Domicile and PRC from Karachi. He submitted copies of his birth certificate, academic certificates, CNIC, Domicile and PRC to substantiate his version. He also denied to have ever applied for Domicile and PRC from Quetta. He further submitted that he was issued a show cause notice by the Baluchistan Public Service Commission regarding possessing dual Domicile Certificate, however on his reply to that show cause Notice he was exonerated from the said charges vide letter No. PSC/EB/2019/417-21.

iii. Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 in their comments have stated that the Commissioner Karachi was requested to verify the Domicile and RPC of Mr. Danish Butt to which concerned officer certified his Domicile as genuine. Besides, Baluchistan Public Service Commission was requested to provide detail information about Mr. Danish Butt if he had applied with it at the same time being a candidate of CCE-2013 in Sindh Public Service Commission to which it was replied that they have no any documentary proof against Mr. Danish arguing that someone might have used a fake ID of his name.

7(3). (c). Respondent No.7 Miss Maria Younis d/o Muhammad

Younis

i. The case of the petitioner against this respondent is that she retained Domicile of Punjab and was also appointed on contract basis for period of five years as Psychologist (BS-17) in Punjab Special Education Department, however subsequently she applied on Sindh Urban Quota on the basis of fake Domicile of Sindh and she was allocated as Section Officer in rescheduled CCE 2013.

ii. She has denied the allegations including her service as Psychologist in the Special Education Department Government of Punjab. Her claim is that she is residing in Karachi by birth, her entire education remained in Karachi, she had never resided in Multan. She placed on record certain documents including birth certificate, CNIC and Educational testimonial which reflect that she is residing in Karachi.

iii. In respect of Respondents No.7 Miss Maria, the respondent No.1 in his comments has stated that her Domicile and PRC were verified through letter dated 14.01.2019 from the Deputy Commissioner Central Karachi who verified the same as genuine. She submitted a written statement before the Sindh Public Service Commission that she had never lived in Multan. Her credentials were sent to the Special Education Department Government of Punjab who vide its letter dated 12.02.2019, after examining the same informed that Mst. Maria Younis the recommendee of Sindh Public Service Commission is resident of Province of Sindh.

7(4). (d & e). Respondent No.8 Mrs. Asma Batool w/o

Muhammad Faisal and

Respondent No.9 Sadaf Azam d/o Muhammad Azam

i. The case of the petitioner in respect of above named respondents is that they had applied on Sindh Urban Quota but they have domiciles of Punjab Province, therefore they are not eligible.

ii. Respondent No.8 Mrs. Asma Batool denied the allegations by filing her counter affidavit wherein she has stated that she does not have multiple/fake Domicile of any other province. Initially she belonged to District Muzaffar Garh and got Domicile and PRC in the year 2002. Subsequently she got married with Muhammad Faisal on 30.10.2011, who is resident of Province of Sindh by birth and after her marriage she is permanently residing in Province of Sindh as such she obtained new CNIC in the year 2012 with permanent address of Karachi East in terms of Section 15 of the Succession Act 1925, which provides that by marriage a woman acquires the Domicile of her husband if she had not the same Domicile before. She submitted that she has surrendered her previous Domicile and the same was cancelled on 10.06.2013 and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commission Muzaffar Garh vide his letter dated 31.12.2018. She further stated that on the request of SGA & CD, the Deputy Commissioner Karachi East conducted spot enquiry and verified the factual position regarding Domicile and PRC of the respondent, which also favour her case. She submitted that her fresh Domicile and PRC have been issued in view of Rule 72(2) of Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971.

iii. Respondent No.9 Ms. Sadaf Azam also filed her counter affidavit and denied the allegations stating therein that she is residing in District East Karachi since her birth and had got entire education from Primary up to masters in Karachi. She had already been issued Domicile and PRC in form “C” in the year 2006 and on the basis of the same she had been appointed as Inspector Investigation FIA. She further stated that she was not aware of the fact that for seeking appointment in Government Service, PRC in form “D” is required and on qualifying the written test when she was asked by SPSC to provide PRC in form “D”, she obtained PRC in form “D” which was accepted by the SPSC.

iv. The respondent No.1 in his comments has supported the case of both these respondents by stating that the Deputy Commissioner East was requested to verify the Domiciles and PRCs of these respondents and the said Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated 15.01.2019 verified the same to be genuine. It is also mentioned in his comments that before obtaining Domicile of Sindh, Mst. Asma Batool got cancelled her Punjab Domicile on 10.06.2013. He also got verified from Deputy Commissioner Muzaffar Garh letter dated 31.12.2018 regarding cancellation of Domicile Certificate who vide his letter dated 24.01.2019 verified that it was dispatched from their office. He also stated that Ms. Asma Batool and Sadaf Azam had also applied in number of cases on the basis of Sindh Urban Domicile. The Enquiry report of Deputy Commissioner East also reveals that they are permanent residents of House No.78, Block-6, PECHS, Karachi East.

8. As has been discussed above we do not find any substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and found that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the Sindh Public Service Commission in the appointments of the above named respondents. The respondents received letters for their appointment and are working on their respective post after completing the formalities which includes verification of their testimonials “Domicile and PRCs”. It is settled by now that once a right is accrued to the appellant by appointment letters issued after complying with all the codal formalities could not be taken away on mere assumption and or supposition and or whims and fancy of any executive functionary. Such right once vests, cannot be destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under the well doctrine of locus poenitentiae, well recognized and entrenched in our jurisprudence. Reliance can be placed on the cases of Director, Social Welfare, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350) and Mst. Basharat Jehan v Director-General, Federal Government Education, FGEI (C/Q) Rawalpindi and others (2015 SCMR 1418).

9. Thus based upon the facts and the circumstances of the case as has been discussed above the petition is dismissed being misconceived.

10. These are the reason of our short order dated 23.12.2021.

J U D G E

J U D G E