ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that certificates of domicile should always be given preference in the recruitment process, as the entire concept of domicile will become redundant and meaningless if national identity cards are preferred to ascertain the permanent abode of a candidate.

“The domicile of a person is treated as a parent document for recruitment to ascertain the permanent abode,” Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar observed in a verdict he wrote as a member of a three-judge bench, headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood.

The bench had taken up a set of appeals filed by the Charsadda district education officer (female), elementary and secondary secretary and the education director of Khyber Pakh­tunkhwa against various Peshawar High Court judgements issued between August 2018 and August 2019.

A number of female candidates had applied for the post of primary schoolteachers and their names were placed on a merit list, compiled for union councils. However, they were later refused appointment on the ground that as per their identity cards, they were not permanent residents of the area or there was a difference in their addresses.

The high court held that PST domiciles should be verified before considering the appointments. Since the education department after verification of the domiciles by a committee refused to appoint them, contempt of court petitions were moved before the PHC, which issued directions to appoint the candidates.

Taking up the matter, the apex court noted that candidates asserted unequivocally before it that they possessed the domiciles of the UC concerned and offered valid justifications for the intermittent change of address with further affirmation that the place of their permanent residence was as per their domiciles.

It was clear from the provisions contained under the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951 that a person cannot obtain multiple domiciles, and if the jobs were given merely considering identity cards without considering the address on the domicile, then it would create complications and complexities, the SC held.

So for all intents and purposes, preference should be given firstly to the certificate of domicile, the apex court declared, adding that if CNIC was to be preferred over the domicile, then it would render the entire concept of a domicile redundant and meaningless in the recruitment process.

The court also regretted that all the candidates were allowed to compete in the aptitude tests for appointment on a contract or a permanent basis as per advertisement; they qualified the test; some of them secured top positions and collectively all of them were declared eligible yet they were dropped from the merit list.

The apex court regretted that nothing was said regarding any vetting of documents made before allowing the candidates to appear in the aptitude test and despite qualifying the test on the basis of documents submitted by them and securing marks on merit, they were denied the job opportunity at the eleventh hour, which was also against the doctrine of legitimate expectation. With these observations, the SC rejected the appeals and upheld the decisions of the high court.

Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2022