Qaisar Khan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary
This civil appeal arises from an impugned order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Sub-Inspector Legal. The core legal question involves the validity of appointment based on domicile and the interpretation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003, specifically regarding multiple or changed domiciles. The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 20(c) of the said Regulations, a domicile once produced shall be final, and producing a domicile of a settled area implies the renouncement of a tribal agency domicile, provided there is no malpractice or mis-declaration. The court concluded that respondent No. 5 validly obtained the domicile of Mardan and secured the first position on merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, establishing that a newly produced domicile is final and operates as a renunciation of a previous tribal domicile without requiring explicit counter-renouncement provisions.
- Does the production of a new domicile for a settled area finalise the candidate's residency status under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003?
- Whether obtaining a domicile in a settled area implies the renunciation of a previous tribal agency domicile in the absence of express statutory prohibition?
- Can an appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector Legal be challenged solely on the ground that the candidate previously held a tribal agency domicile?
- Regulation 20(c), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2003
- Regulation 20(g), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2003
ORDER
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.
Cited by 3 cases
- FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, through Chairman, Islamabad Versus Dr. SHUMAILA NAEEM 2026 PLC(CS) 150
- FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, through Chairman, Islamabad Versus Dr. SHUMAILA NAEEM 2026 PLD 1
- Federal Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Islamabad vs Dr. Shumaila Naeem and Others 2025 SCP 226