JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT (Judicial Department) W.P. 564-M/2019 Date of hearing: 26.11.2019 Mst. Shaista Gul d/o Muhammad Zafar Ali, r/o Khema, Union Council Balambat, presently at Union Council Khazana, District Dir Lower. (Petitioner) Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 05 others. (Respondents) Present: Syed Abdul Hag, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Wilayat Ali Khan, A.A.G for the official Respondent JUDGMENT SYED _ARSHAD ALI, J. Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of this. writ petition as well as the connected writ petitions as in all the petitions, adjudication of a common question of law is involved although the factual aspect of the cases is somewhat different. The connected writ petitions are listed below: W.P S65-M/2019 (Mst. Saba Gul Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE, Peshawar etc) Saber (DB) Hows HOW'BLE MR JUSTICE WIOAR AHMADW.P 576-M/2019 (Mst. Saima Bibi Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE, Peshawar ete) w M2019 (Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE, Peshawar etc) WP 620-M/2019 (Mst. Sara Hasham Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE, Peshawar etc) WP 614-M2019 (Miss, Nighat Sultan Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE, Peshawar ete) In all the petitions, the petitioners, being married women, had applied against the posts of Primary School Teacher (“PST”), for which, inter alia, the eligibility criteria is that the candidate must be the permanent resident of the Union Council, where the school in which the vacant post is to be filled is located. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that it is the address of the candidate, which is mentioned in her domicile certificate, the determining factor of her permanent residence for her appointment against the post in the Union Council where the post is lying vacant. In support of his arguments, he has relied on the case of ‘Dr. Shama Hidayat Vs. Chairman Public Service Saez (DB) HONBLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HONBLE MR, JUSTICE WIGAR AMMADCommission and 02 others’ [2014 PLC (CS) Note 93, Peshawar], judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2016 in W.P No.146-M/2016, and another judgment of this Court dated 16.11.2016 in case of ‘Sana-ur-Rehman Vs. Secretary Secondary & Elementary Education’ (W.P No.3253-P/2016). 4 As against that the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the departmental representative has argued that since all the candidates in these petitions are married women, therefore, the determining place/address for their appointment is the one which is mentioned in their Computerized National Identity Card (“CNIC”), which they have obtained after their marriage. 5. Arguments heard and record of the case was perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.A.G representing the official respondents. 6 In order to effectively comprehend the legal issue and the factual aspect of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the governing law on the subject. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors seesaw (DB) HON'SLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HON'SLE MR. JUSTICE WIQAR AHMADand Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011 (“the Act”) envisages the criteria, inter alia, for appointment, posting and transfer of teachers, serving in primary, middle, secondary and higher secondary schools etc. The relevant provision for determining this issue is Section 3 of the Act, which reads as follows. “3. Appointment, posting and transfer of primary school teachers.--- (1) The vacancy of primary schoo! teacher shall be filled in from the candidates belonging to the Union Council of their permanent residence mentioned in their Computerized National Identity Card and domicile, on merit and if no eligible candidate in that Union Council is available where the school is situate, such appointment shall be made on merit from amongst eligible candidates belonging to the adjacent Union Councils: Provided that on availability of a vacancy, a primary school teacher, appointed from adjacent Union Council, as referred to in this sub-section, shall be transferred against a vacant post in a school of the Union Council of his residence within a period of fifteen days, (2) Upon marriage, the primary school teacher on request may be transferred to the school in the Union Council, where his spouse, ordinarily resides, subject to the availability of vacancy. (3) The primary school teacher shall be transferred to other school within the Union Couneil on completion of tenure as may be prescribed subject to the policy of rationalization for maintaining certain student teachers ratio, if any. (4 Government shall, within a period not exceeding one year of the commencement of this Act, make arrangement for posting of all the primary school teachers appointed prior to coming into force of this Act, to the schools of their respective Union Councils or adjacent Union Councils, as the case may be.” The bare reading of this section manifests the intention of the legislature that the candidate who saveane (DB) HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALIapplies to the post must belong to the Union Council where the post is laying vacant, however, referring to the place of residence in domicile certificate and CNIC to be considered by the appointing authority primarily seems to have structured the discretion of the appointing, authority relating to the place of residence of the candidate. 8 The domicile certificate and CNIC are the two official documents where the permanent place of residence is essentially mentioned. However the question is that how would the appointing authority determine the permanent place of residence of a candidate when there is an apparent disparity between the two documents i.e. domicile and the CNIC relating to the place of permanent residence of the candidate? Indeed, the core issue is that how the appointing authority will choose the place of permanent resident of a candidate when the same has been differently mentioned in the aforesaid documents. This issue has not been dealt with by the Act itself. However normally the appointing authority misconstrue the domicile certificate, the definite evidence of the permanent abode sabe au (DB) HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HON'BLE IMR. JUSTICE WIGAR AMMADof its holder. In other words we can say that the domicile/certificate has always been misconstrued to be connoting to a particular village, Union Council or District, the place of residence of a person/candidate. Indeed, the concept of domicile and permanent residence (Village, Post Office, Union Council or District of Pakistan) are two distinct and separate concepts. If we are to trace the concept of domicile it would appears in different statutes. The first stature that we have on the subject is the Part-II of the Succession Act, 1925 and the other is Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (Act No. II of 1951) and Rule 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. Certain relevant provisions relating to domicile are provided in the Succession Act, 1925, are reproduced as following:~ “6. One domicile only effects succession to movables. A person can have only one domicile for the purpose of succession to his movable property. 7. Domicile of origin of person of legitimate birth. The domicile of origin of every person of legitimate birth is in the country in which at the time of his birth, his father was domiciled, or, if he is a posthumous child, in the country in which his father was domiciled; or, if he is a posthumous child, in the country in which his father was domiciled at the time of his father’s death. 8 - SebzAur (DB)9. Continuance of domicile of origin. The domicile of origin prevails until a new domicile has been acquired. 10. Acquisition of new domicile. A man acquires a new domicile by taking up his fixed habitation in a country which is not that of his domicile of origin. 11. Special mode of acquiring domicile in Pakistan, Any person may acquire a domicile in Pakistan, by making and depositing in some office in Pakistan, appointed in this behalf by the Provincial Government, a declaration in writing under his hand of his desire to acquire such domicile provided that he has been resident Pakistan for one year immediately preceding the time of his making such declaration. 12. Domicile not acquired by residence as representative of foreign Government or as part of his family. A person who is appointed by the Government of one country to be its ambassador, consult or other representative in another country does not acquire a domicile in the latter sensitive in another country does not acquire a domicile in the latter country by reason only of residing there in pursuance of his appointment, nor does any other person acquire such domicile by reason only of residing with such first mentioned person as part of his family, or as a servant. 13. Continuance of new domicile. A new domicile continues until the former domicile has been resumed or another has been acquired. 14. Minor’s domicile. The domicile of a minor follows the domicile of the parent from whom he derived his domicile of origin 15. Domicile acquired by woman on marriage. By marriage a woman acquires the domicile of her husband, if she had not the same domicile before 16, Wife's domicile during marriage. A wife's domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband. Exception. The wife’s domicile no longer follows that of her husband if they are separated by the sentence of a competent Court or if the husband is undergoing a sentence of transportation. 17. Minor’s acquisition of new domicile. Save as hereinbefore otherwise provided in this Part, a person cannot, during minority acquire a new domicile.” Seoe Ae (DB) HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALISimilarly, section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which also governs the acquisition of domicile of Pakistan reads as following:- “17. Certificate of domicile, - The Federal Government may upon an application being made to it in the prescribed manner containing the prescribed particulars grant a certificate of domicile to any person in respect of whom it is satisfied that he has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year immediately before the making of the application, and has acquired a domicile therein.” Likewise, Rule 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1952, is reproduced as under:- wh “23. Certificate of domicile. The Federal Government, the Provincial Government or any District Magistrate authorized by the Provincial Government in this behalf may on application’ made to this behalf issue a certificate of domicile in Form ‘P-I' in the manner followin; (@) An application for a certificate of domicile shall be made in Form ‘P” in duplicate, shall be accompanied by an affidavit affirming the truth of the statement made in it and affirming further that the applicant had not migrated to India after the first day of March 1947 or that, having so migrated, and returned to Pakistan under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by an officer authorized by the Government of Pakistan. (b) Any authority to whom an application is presented may demand such evidence as it may consider necessary for satisfying itself that the facts stated in the application are correct and that the applicant has been continually resident in Pakistan for a period not less than one year and intends to live permanently in Pakistan. (©) The authority shall pass such orders on the application as it deems fit.” The close perusal of the above referred provisions of laws would clearly reveal that the ‘Sener (DB) HOWBLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HON'SLE MR. JUSTICE WIGAR AMMADacquisition of domicile certificate under the afore-said statutes bestows upon its holder the permanent residence of Pakistan and not a particular place in Pakistan. This certificate may refer to the place of permanent residence of its holder but is not the conclusive proof that its holder is the permanent resident of a particular place mentioned in the certificate. This issue was elaborately answered by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of ‘Muhammad Yar Khan Vs. Deputy Commissioner- cum-Political_ Agent, Loralai_and another’ (1980 SCMR 456), wherein it was held that: “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 must 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 of 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 of 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. However, the main reason which seems to have invariably led the authorities erroneously to describe the grantee of a domicile certificate to Saba Aur (DB) HOW'BLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE WIQAR AHMADbe the domicile of a particular part of Pakistan would be found in Form P-1 to the rules.” The aforesaid view has been followed by the Baluchistan High Court in case of ‘Asmatullah Khan Vs. Government of Baluchistan through _ Chie} Secretary and another’ (PLD 2013 Baluchistan 13) as well as by this Court in case of ‘Zahir Shah Vs. Agency Education Officer, Mohmand Agency Ghallanai_and 03 others’ (PLD 2007 Peshawar 147). 10. The domicile certificate was an important documents regarding the citizenship of its holder before the promulgation of National Registration Act, 1973 Act of 1973. Indeed it was the Act of 1973 which has introduced the registration of citizens of Pakistan and issuance of identity cards. i. However, the issue in hand is not the acquisition of domicile of a particular place by a person in Pakistan but relates to the discretion of the appointing authority to determine the place of permanent residence of a person/candidate, who is applying against a post, as one of the essential criteria The permanent place of residence of a person has a very wide connotation. For example, a person might have Seber (DB)-ll- been bom in one place, however, it is his fundamental right to make any other place as the place of his permanent residence. This right has also been provided to him under the clear mandate of Article 15 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which reads as under:- “15, Every citizen shall have the right to remain in, and, subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public terest enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof.” 12, Thus, if a person has obtained any document (CNIC or domicile) as stated in section 3 of the Act, wherein his permanent place of residence is mentioned would not bar him to permanently settle at a different place. However, the appointing authority has very limited discretion. It cannot consider the permanent place of residence of a candidate other than the one mentioned in the CNIC or Domicile certificate. In case, the permanent place of residence as mentioned in both the documents is different from one another then the intention of the candidate regarding his permanent place of residence may be gathered from the document which was obtained later in time, provided it inspires confidence and does not prima facie appear to have ‘ater (DB) HONBLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HONSLE MR, JUSTICE WiQAR AHMAD-12- been obtained with mala fide intention after the issuance of advertisement only for getting the job. The document which is obtained later in time should be preferred because it has the clear manifestation of the holder of the document that he/she is permanently settled at the place of his residence mentioned in the said document. However, if it appears to the appointing authority from record that a candidate before the advertisement for the post was the permanent resident of one place and after the advertisement he/she obtains another domicile of CNIC where his/her permanent place is mentioned differently then obviously address mentioned in the new domicile/CNIC shall ordinarily be not considered as his/her permanent place of residence. However the acquisition of new domicile or CNIC by a married women with a changed address of her husband would be an exception to the said rule. 13. Inall these cases, the issue relating to the place of permanent residence of the married women is involved. In this regard, we could not find any instrument governing the issue, however, on the analogy of Sections 15 & 16 of the Succession Act, 1925, it appears that a married woman normally follows the domicile of her husband during subsistence of the SeozAlie (DB) HOWBLE IMR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HONBLE MMR, JUSTICE WIGAR AHMADae marriage. The issue in context of a married woman for a Government post has been thoroughly elaborated in the case of ‘Dr.Mrs. Munawar Zaheen Vs. The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and 2 others’ (PLD 1974 Lahore 36), wherein by holding that: “9, The Law Department's advice dated 22,2.72 appears to be the correct analysis of the decisions of the Government on this subject. It is also otherwise reasonable and just. It imparts certainty on the question of domicile of a female Government servant by obviating the necessity of frequent changes in it, during continuance of her service and avoids absurdities. which can arise by following the view of the Law Adviser. It is not denied that an unmarried female candidate belonging to a particular Zone will not lose her post if she gets married to a person of another Zone, after selection. The result of this view would be that a woman who is eligible for a post from a particular Zone before marriage and can continue to hold the post reserved for said Zone, despite marrying a person belonging to another Zone, but she will however be ineligible for the said post, if she got married to the said person just before the Interview. The decision of the Services Department dated 14-1-72 was doubtless designed to correct such an absurd position. But the said dec must be read subject to the earlier deci made on 3.8.62.” The aforesaid view taken by the Hon’ble Lahore High Court is also reflected in subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Act, which reads as (2) Upon marriage, the primary school teacher on request may be transferred to the school in the Union Council, where his spouse, ordinarily resides, subject to the availability of vacancy.” saben (DB) HOW'BLE MR. JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALi HON'SLE MR. JUSTICE WIOAR AHMAD‘The intention of the married woman to make the ordinary or permanent place of residence of her husband can also be gathered if she has acquired a CNIC or domicile wherein her permanent residence is reflected as that of a husband. 14. Thus, in view of the above, we have reached at the conclusion that before entering into service, the permanent place of residence of a married woman would be deemed to be that of her husband and entry in this regard in the CNIC and domicile certificate would be an evidence of her permanent place of residence for the purpose of section 3 of the Act irrespective of the fact that the said document ( domicile or CNIC) has been acquired after publication of the advertisement for the post, 15. Moving on to the facts of each case in line with the aforesaid observations. In the present writ petition, Mst. Shaista Gul claims that she is the bona fide resident of Union Council Balambat, District Dir Lower, and has thus applied for the post of PST in various schools which were located in the territorial limits of the said Union saveaur (DB) HON'SLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE WIOQAR AHMAD-15- Council. She has obtained 112.47 marks in the NTS test and was placed at serial No.6 of the merit list. The respondents in their comments, while denying the assertion of the petitioner, have stated that she does not belong to Union Council Balambat as according to her CNIC, she is the permanent resident of Union Council Khazana, District Dir Lower, thus, she was not considered for her appointment in Union Council Balambat. The perusal of the record would reveal that in the advertisement soliciting the application of the eligible candidates for the post of PST, the cut-off date for receiving the applications was 20.12.2017. Although, the original place of residence of the petitioner, according to her domicile certificate, is Union Council Balambat, however, before interview, she was married to one Imtiaz Zarin, who is the permanent resident of Union Council Khazana. She was issued a fresh CNIC on 15.03.2018, wherein her permanent & temporary place of residence is mentioned as Union Council Khazana and not Balambat. Thus, for the purpose of section 3 of the Act, her permanent residence is the territorial limits of Union Council Saozaw" (DB)-16- Khazana and not Balambat, therefore, she was rightly not considered for her appointment on the post, which was meant for those candidates who belong to Union Council Balambat, This petition is accordingly dismissed. 16, In W.P_No.614-M/2019, Mst. Nighat Sultan claims to be resident of Union Council Bisghram, District Dir Lower, had applied for the post of PST, which was lying vacant in the school situated within the territorial limits of the Union Council Bisghram. However, despite being meritorious than the other candidates, she was not considered for appointment. The respondents in their comments have denied the assertion of the petitioner by stating that during the process of interview, the documents of the petitioner were scrutinized and the petitioner was declared as the permanent resident of District Karak, while the posts of PST were advertised for the inhabitants/aspirants of Union Council Bisghram, Dir Lower. They have also stated that according to her CNIC, both the permanent as well as temporary addresses of the petitioners are of District Karak. Sees (DB)-17- The documents available on the file clearly show that the place of her birth might be Union Council Bisghram but she is married to one Abdul Shakoor Khan who is the permanent resident of District Karak and the CNIC which was issued to her on 13.10.2015 shows her permanent and temporary place of residence as District Karak. Therefore, the refusal of the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on the impugned post, which was lying vacant in Union Council Bisghram, was in line with the mandate of Section 3 of the Act. Hence, the present petition fails, which is accordingly dismissed. In W.P_No.576-M/2019, the petitioner Mst. Saima Bibi, who claims to be the permanent resident of Union Council Lajbook and, therefore, she had applied against the post of PST in various schools situated within the territorial limits of the said Union Council Lajbook. She has obtained 95.4 marks in the NTS test but despite meritorious than the private respondents, she was not offered appointment by the respondents. In comments, the respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner by stating that during the process of interview, it was sought out that the petitioner is a ‘Saez ir (DB) HOWBLE MR. HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE WIGAR AHMADpermanent resident of Navay Kalay Timergara, which falls within the domain of Urban Council Timergara while the posts of PST were advertised for the Union Council Lajbook. According to the record, the respondents had advertised the posts of PST and for receiving the applications, the cut-off date was 20.12.2017. According to CNIC of the petitioner, which was issued to her on 16.2.2014, she is the wife of one Hanifullah whose temporary address is Korai, Haya Serai, Tehsil Balambat, Timergara, Dir Lower whereas his permanent address is Naway Kalay, Post Office Timergara, District Dir Lower, which according to the record falls within the limits of Union Council Urban Timergara. Thus, she being not the permanent resident of Union Council Lajbook was rightly not considered for appointment as PST in the said Union Council Lajbook. As such, this petition is meritless which stands dismissed. 18. In WP 565-M/2019, the petitioner Mst. Saba Gul who claims to be the permanent resident of Moranai Union Council Lajbook Tehsil Balambat, District Dir Lower, on the basis of her domicile ‘ane (DB) HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI How! madcertificate issued to her in July 2013, she had applied for the post of PST in various schools, which are located in the limits of Union Council Lajbook. On being noticed, the respondents have filed their comments, wherein they have denied the claim of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has changed her address to Village Dabbar, Post Office Saddo, Tehsil Timergara in her CNIC issued to her on 01.08.2017, which was later again changed by her with mala fide to Union Council Lajbook just for her appointment. It is evident from the record that the cut-off date in the advertisement for receiving the application was 20.12.2017 whereas the CNIC was issued to the petitioner on 01.8.2017, wherein she has been shown the wife of Shahid Hussain, with the permanent address of Dabbar, Post Office Saddo, Timergara. Moreover, on 31.12.2018, she has yet obtained another CNIC, wherein she was shown to be the resident of Moranai Union Council Lajbook. Since, her marriage tie with her husband is still intact, therefore, this change of address in her CNIC prima facie appears to be based on mala fide just for her appointment in Union Council Lajbook. Seber (DB) HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI HONBLE NR, JUSTICE WIGAR AMMAD-20- Therefore, the respondents have rightly not considered her for appointment against the post in question in Union Council Lajbook. Accordingly, this petition having no merit is, therefore, dismissed. 19. In W.P_577-M/2019, the petitioner Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar who claims to be the permanent resident of Karakara, Union Council Zemdara had applied against the post of PST in various schools which are situated in the limits of the said Union Council Zemdara. However, being higher in merit than the private respondents, she was not considered for appointment on the ground that her place of residence was doubtful. The respondents in their comments have controverted the place of residence of the petitioner by stating that she belongs to Union Council Bandagai, District Dir Lower, while the post in question is vacant in Union Council Zemdara. They have relied upon the domicile certificate, which was issued to her on 09.8.2005. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was married to Naseeb Rawan who is the permanent resident of Union Council Zemdara. In this regard, she seozawr (DB) HON'SLE MR. JUSTICE SYED ARSE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE WIOAR AHMADwas issued a fresh CNIC on 17.7.2018, wherein the said Naseeb Rawan has been recorded as her husband, therefore, the permanent and temporary address of her husband, ie. Union Council Zemdara would be considered as her address. Thus, in terms of section 3 of the Act, the permanent place of residence of the petitioner was Union Council Zemdara and as such the conduct of the respondents by not considering her for appointment against the post of PST, which was situated within the territorial limits of Union Council Zemdara, is illegal and without lawful authority. Even the representative of the department present in the Court could not controvert this factual aspect of the case. Hence, by allowing this petition, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for her appointment as PST in Union Council Zemdara. 20. In W.P_No.620-M/2019, the petitioner Mst. Sara Hasham who claims to be the permanent resident of Goro, Union Council Bandagai, Tehsil Timergara, District Dir Lower had thus applied for the post of PST in various schools falling within the territorial limits of Union Council Bandagai. She has secured 103.59 marks in the NTS test and despite being higher in merit than the private respondents, she was not offered Sezai (DB)-2- appointment on the ground that she was not permanent resident of the said Union Council. The respondents in their comments have controverted the claim of the petitioner by stating that the present petitioner belongs to Union Council Khungai and therefore she was not entitled to her appointment against the post in Union Council Bandagai. According to the advertisement, the cut-off date for receiving the application was 20.12.2017 whereas the petitioner was married to one Amjad Khan on 05.06.2013, whose permanent place of residence, according to the record, is village Goro, Bandagai falling within the limits of the Union Council Bandagai. She had also obtained a fresh CNIC for the purpose of following the place of residence of her husband on 13.6.2018. Thus, the place of her residence in terms of section 3 of the Act is that of her husband, which falls within the Union Council Bandagai, therefore, the conduct of the respondents by not considering the petitioner for the impugned post of PST is illegal and without lawful authority. Hence, by allowing this petition, the respondents are directed to consider the SaveAvr (DB) HOWSLE MR, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALL HONOLE MR. JUSTICE WIQAR AHMAD-2- petitioner for her appointment as PST in Union Council Bandagai. 21, All these petitions are disposed of accordingly. Announced 26.11.2019 GE oe hh (i) a cana om vote snc sen ani a HOW'SLE MR. JUSTICE WIGAR AHINAD