P L D 1988 Karachi 616 (PLP)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This Constitutional petition is filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in which grievance of petitioner Altaf Ahmed is that he applied for admission in M . B . , B . S. for academic year 1986‑87 in Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro, Sind against the quota of District Thatta but he was refused admission on the ground that he had not filed Domicile Certificate .of his father. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 10‑3‑1987 respondent No‑1 Principal/ Chairman, Selection Board, Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro displayed merit list in respect of quota of boys' seats of District Thatta in which name of petitioner appeared at serial No.7. There was also a direction at serial No.7 that petitioner was to submit attested copy of his father's certificate of Domicile. On 25‑5‑1987 respondent No.l displayed list of successful candidates in which name of the petitioner did not appear in spite of the fact that according to the petitioner certificate of Domicile of his father was produced by him on 16‑3‑1987. On the other hand, stand taken in the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.l is that claim of the petitioner is denied to the extent that any merit list of candidates was displayed on the Notice Board on 10‑3‑1987. It is admitted that notice was displayed on the Board directing candidates to submit all necessary documents upto 10‑3‑1987. Selection list was finalised by the Selection Board on 14‑4‑1987 and due to non‑production of father's Domicile Certificate by the petitioner, he was not considered eligible for admission and his name was not included in the list of candidates which was announced on 25‑5‑1987. It is categorically stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that petitioner neither produced that Certificate nor approached respondent No.l upto 25‑5‑1987 and had he done so and complied with requirements of rules, there was no reason to exclude his name from the Selection list. Petitioner approached respondent No.l after 6‑6‑1987 when there was no vacant seat available. Before us during the hearing, petitioner has not produced any document or material in support of his assertion that merit list was put on the Board on 10‑3‑1987 and he produced in the office of respondent No.l Domicile Certificate of his father on 16‑3‑1987. In paragraph 2 of the petition, it is averred by the petitioner that he submitted attested copy of his father's Domicile Certificate in the office of respondent No.l on or about 16‑3‑1987 and has appended ,photo copy of the said certificate marked 'A'. Perusal of this photo copy shows that certificate was issued in Thatta on 19‑10‑1966 in favour of Haji Yar Muhammad son of Haji Ashraf by District Magistrate. Apart from this, there is no other indication in the said copy that this certificate or copy thereof was available with petitioner before 16‑3‑1987 and was produced in the office of respondent No.l on or about 16‑3=1987 as is claimed by the petitioner. If any such assertion is made by the petitioner, it is for him to substantiate the same and produce satisfactory evidence in support of such claim. It is submitted by learned A.A.‑G. on behalf of respondent No.l that in the application form all important directions are printed which show that a candidate has to file several documents. Photo copy of such directions from the application form appended with counter‑affidavit shows that at item (g) requirement is to produce Domicile Certificate of father if the candidate is below 21 years of age. If father is dead then such .candidate is to produce Domicile Certificate of his mother. In the instant case, it is admitted that at the time when petitioner applied for admission he was under 21 years of age, as such he was required to produce Domicile Certificate of his father. Petitioner cannot claim to be unaware of this requirement because this is so stated in the application form. Now according to counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of respondent there was notice on the Board directing the candidates to submit all the necessary documents upto 10‑3‑1987. Petitioner did not file Domicile Certificate of his father by that date. He did not do so upto 14‑4‑1987 when the Selection list was finalised which was announced on the following day. He approached respondent No.l for this purpose after 6‑6‑1987. Learned A . A . ‑G . has submitted before us that for academic year 1986‑87 no separate prospectus was issued as such reliance was placed on prospectus of 1985‑

86. Rule 7 contained therein provides that every application for admission shall be accompanied by two copies of the documents duly attested by a Government servant of Grade‑18 or above. Documents specified require a candidate who is under 21 years of age to produce Domicile Certificate of his father and if his father is not alive then Domicile Certificate of his mother. It is submitted by learned A.A.‑G. this is where the petitioner has failed and has not supplied Domicile Certificate of his father within the stipulated time. Mr. Kadir Bakhsh Bhutto, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that petitioner has produced any material in. support of his claim that he had produced the requisite document before the stipulated date or even after that and before‑ the finalisation of the Selection list. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Miss Khursheed Bano v. Chairman and Member, Selection Committee, Liaquat Medical College, ‑Hyderabad and others (1982 S C M R 106) in which our Supreme Court has held that documents mentioned in rule 7 of the prospectus are to be produced as required and non‑production cannot be condoned on the ground that such certificate was a mere redundancy and should not have been asked for. It is further held therein that document produced after the date of interview cannot be considered and had to be visited by disqualification of candidate. On our enquiry whether petitioner applied for admission for the next academic year 1987‑88, Mr. Bhutto informed us that the petitioner did not apply for admission. We see no reason in the way of petitioner not to apply for admission in the next session, except that petitioner is not serious to get admission in M. B., B. S. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he be allowed admission against the seat which had fallen vacant in the same session in which he had applied and for this purpose attempt was made to rely upon rule 5 of the prospectus. We are afraid that this rule does not help the petitioner for the reason that it provides that seats which remain vacant at the time of selection shall be filled by admitting the next candidate on merit list from the same district. In the instant case, petitioner was not next candidate on the merit list but his admission was rejected on the ground of non‑production of requisite documents. For the facts and reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed., H.B.T./A.396/K Petition dismissed.