SHC dismisses dual domicile holder's plea for govt job in Karachi
- By Asghar Umar -
- Jun 16, 2026
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by a candidate seeking appointment as a primary school teacher, ruling that he was ineligible for the post due to holding dual domiciles.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that his client had successfully passed the recruitment test for the post of primary school teacher in Sindh but was denied an appointment letter on the grounds that he possessed two domiciles.
The lawyer contended that the petitioner had later cancelled his domicile of Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab, after relocating to Karachi.
The counsel further alleged that the petitioner was being subjected to discriminatory treatment in the recruitment process.
However, the prosecutor informed the court that the petitioner’s Punjab domicile was cancelled in September 2024, whereas the deadline for applications under the recruitment advertisement had expired in April 2021. Therefore, the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria at the relevant time.
Sindh’s FY 2026-27 budget will be announced on June 17
In its ruling, the court observed that under the law, a citizen is entitled to possess only one domicile and one Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC). The court noted that there is no legal provision allowing an individual to obtain or use multiple domiciles simultaneously.
The SHC further held that the petitioner had failed to provide complete and accurate information while applying for the job. Referring to a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Rahim Yar Khan, the court noted that the petitioner’s previous domicile remained valid and was cancelled only at a later stage.
The court observed that, prima facie, the petitioner had concealed material facts at the time of submitting his application and failed to disclose that he held an active domicile from another province.
The judgment stated that providing incorrect information was sufficient grounds for disqualification and noted that the petitioner’s affidavit regarding the accuracy of the information submitted had also been proven false.
Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.