1995SCMR334 (PLP)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 14‑9‑1992 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan at Quetta in Constitution Petition No. 250 of 1992 filed by the appellant regarding refusal of respondent No. 1 to grant admission to the appellant in the First Year of Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the academic year 1989‑90, dismissing the same,. leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether any discrimination has been made in the case of the appellant as on A identical facts, Daulat Shad, Hasham Khan, Azam Khan and Sikandar Shah (who got their education in the Sindh Province) were admitted to the Bolan Medical College against the seats reserved for Zhob District.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant belongs to Kakar Bayanzai Tribe claiming to be the resident at Manzari Tehsil and District Pishin on the basis of local Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin in her favour on 18‑2‑1989. It appears that the appellant's father shifted to Karachi during the year 1970 for earning better livelihood. The appellant got her education in Karachi. She passed F.Sc. pre‑medical examination in the year 1989 from the Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi and secured 636 adjusted marks. As stated above she applied for admission in the First Year in Bolan Medical College for the above academic year but respondent No. 1 rejected her candidature on the ground that she failed to satisfy it about her education outside the Province in terms of Article 30 of the Prospectus Bolan Medical College 1989‑90 hereinafter referred to as the Prospectus. Since the appellant was declined the admission on the above ground respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who obtained 597 and 576 marks respectively were selected for admission. Respondent No. 1 while declining admission to the appellant passed the following order:‑‑ "District Pishin

3. Miss Sakina Begum d/o Haji Abdul Qudoos: The candidate appeared before the Selection Committee and was heard. She passed entire education from Karachi Board. The candidate explained that she is living since long with her father and 'family family due to the business of her father. The Selection Committee observed that her family has shifted to Karachi for all intents and purposes and came to conclusion that the candidate has no right to claim seat from Pishin District. Therefore her application was rejected by the Selection Committee under Paragraph No. 30 of the Prospectus Bolan Medical College, during the Academic Session 1989‑90."

3. Thereupon the appellant filed above Constitution petition which was dismissed as stated above. After that the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal which was granted to consider the above question. In support of the above appeal Mr. SA.M. Quadri learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that there is ample material on record to indicate that the appellant's father has not abandoned his native place in Pishin District and that he had gone to Karachi on account of better economic prospectus. In furtherance of his above submission, he has invited our attention to the photostat copies of the appellant's father identity card, permanent Resident Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin in favour of the appellant, voter list indicating the name of the appellant's father, Fard Haqqiat, Fard Jamabandi and Fard Intakhaab‑az‑Intaqaal etc. In order to appreciate the above contentions, it may be pertinent to reproduce Article 30 of the Prospectus which reads as follows:‑ "The candidate must have passed the Matriculation with Science and Intermediate Science (Pre‑Medical) Examination from Balochistan unless the candidates could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reasons for not studying in Balochistan for claiming exemption from this condition."

4. A perusal of the above‑quoted Article indicates that it envisages that the candidate must have passed the Matriculation with Science and Intermediate Science (Pre‑Medical) Examination from Balochistan unless the candidate could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reasons for not studying in Balochistan for claiming exemption from the above condition. In our view the above Article has nothing to do with the factum that the appellant or her father are in fact permanent residents of Pishin District and that they have every intention to come back from Karachi to their native place. Under the above Article respondent No. 1 has the discretion to waive the above condition for not getting education in Balochistan for Matriculation and Intermediate examinations in the above subject for cogent reasons. Respondent No. 1 in the instant case did not find cogent reasons for waiving the above requirement. The High Court could not have interfered with the exercise of the above discretion by respondent No. 1 unless it would have been of the view that the exercise of the above discretion against the appellant was perverse or was not warranted by the facts of the case which the High Court did not find. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment seems to be unexceptionable.

5. Adverting to the point of discrimination on which leave has been granted in this case, we may observe that there is no material before us to conclude that in the cases of Daylat Shah, Hasham Khan, Azam Khan and Sikandar Shah, respondent No. 1 has wrongly concluded that they had shown cogent reasons for not studying in Balochistan for claiming exemption from the conditions provided for in above‑quoted Article 30 of the Prospectus. The mere fact that the above four candidates had got their education outside the Province of Balochistan like the appellant would not make a case of discrimination unless it is shown that the reasons advanced by them for not obtaining education in Balochistan were identical with that of the appellant. We may observe that in order to make a case of discrimination, it must be shown that the parties were placed in same position/situation but they were treated differently, which is lacking in the present case.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is dismissed but there is no order as to costs. AA./M‑2078/S Appeal dismissed.