Before MunawarAhmad Mirza, CJ (PLP)

M13NAWAR AHMED MIRZA, C.J.--Petitioner passed F.Sc. Pre- medical from Balochistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Quetta during Session 1989 by securing 1 559 adjusted marks. Being a domicile resident of Chaman, she applied for admission in Bolan Medical College for the Session 1989-90 against reserved seats of Pishin District. Selection Committee on considering her merits, declined to grant admission, but kept the petitioner at S.No.3 of the waiting- list. For convenience Merit list of the candidates who applied for Session 1989-90 is given below- "Merit list of Pishin District for the Session 1989-90. S.NO. Name with Parentage Ajusted marks Board Remarks

1. Syed Jalaluddin s/o S. Abdul Wadood. 707 Karachi. Rejected.

2. Miss Mumtaz Mahil d/o Zafar Khan 685 Karachi Rejected

3. Miss Farida Jan d/o Dr. Naimatullah Jan. 683 Balochistan. O.K.

4. Raz Muhammad son of 676 Balochistan. O.K. Syed Muhammad

5. Miss Sakina Begum d/o Abdul Ouddus 636 Karachi. Rejected

6. Miss Masooma d/o Haji Gharib Shah. 632 Balochistan. O.K

7. Miss Rukhsana Tareen d/o Abdul Haq 627 Balochistan. O.K

8. Naveed Latif s/o 617 do ().K. Abdul Latif

9. Wali Jan s/o Haji Lall Jan. 617 do ().K.

10. Matiullah s/o Haji Abdul Samad. 612 do O.K.

11. Syed Shamsuddin s/o Syed Mobeen Ahmad. 597 do O.K.

12. Miss Safia Haider d/o Ghulam Haider. 576 do O.K. (Reserved seat for girls).

13. Miss Uzma Bashir d/o waitinglist Bashir Ahmad. 568 Balochistan

14. Zahoor Ahmad s/o Muhammad Noor. 562 do

15. Miss Shazia Tabasum d/o Nazar Muhammad 559 do It may however, be seen that respondent No.4 Miss Safia Haider daughter of Ghulam Haider who otherwise obtained 576 marks in F.Sc. Pre-medical had not qualified Matriculation examination with science, as required by the Prospectus. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.4 was not entitled to admission, therefore, Selection Committee had acted in an arbitrary manner. Order of Selection Committee is reproduced below:-- "The Selection Committee, after hearing the reasons, relaxed the condition of passing Matriculation Examination in Humanities group, as the circumstances were beyond their control, because no science teacher was posted in Chaman during the period of studies of the candidate Miss Safia Haider d/o Ghulam Haider Session 1989-90 under para. No.30 of the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, Quetta." Feeling aggrieved from above decision present petition was filed making following prayer:- "It is prayed that in consideration of above, learned Court may graciously declare that admission of respondent No.4 in Bolan Medical College, for Session 1989-90 was without lawful authority and petitioner was entitled to be admitted against girl reserved seat against which respondent No.4 had been adjusted; (ii) learned Court may be pleased to make appropriate directions for admission of petitioner to Ist Year M.B.,B.S. Class of Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the Session 1989-90 against girls reserved seat of Pishin District, in place of respondent NoA" Mr. Muhammad Aslarn Chishti, learned counsel for petitioner emphatically urged that Articles 29, 30 and 37 of the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College make it obligatory for the candidate desirous to seek admission to have necessarily qualified Matriculation Examination with science. According to him respondent No.4 Miss Safia Haider lacked essential qualification, therefore, her admission by Selection Committee was unjustified and arbitrary. Mr. Tariq Mahmood, I learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently opposing the petition, argued that petitioner had less marks than respondent No.4, therefore, she could not invoke Constitutional remedy. Learned counsel emphatically contested that even if petition is allowed, admission can be granted only to the candidates having higher marks on the waiting list. According to him petition was infructuous. Learned Advocate-General also opposed the petition. It was canvassed that petitioner cannot be. granted discretionary relief superseding the rights of candidates waiting for their turn on probable vacancy. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties in the light of available record and relevant law. It may be seen that Articles 30 and 37 (d) of Prospectus clearly indicate that candidate applying for admission must have passed Matriculation Examination with science. Whereas, in the instant case admittedly respondent No.4 has passed Matriculation Examination from humanity group. Selection Committee being creation of Prospectus is bound to regulate admissions against District merit seats or reserved seats in accordance with conditions. laid down by its provisions. This body obviously does not enjoy any power to relax the rules. Bare perusal of impugned order reflects an attempt of granting admission to respondent No' ' 4 beyond the scope of Prospectus which therefore cannot be validated. Thus relevant provisions of Prospectus have been distinctly misconstrued and misinterpreted. Similar question of law was duly considered by Division Bench of this Court in Constitutional Petition No.285/90 Abdul Wasay v. Government of Balochistan and others. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No.131-Q/91 had also upheld said decision. Relevant portion from judgment- of Hon'ble Supreme Court appearing at para.4 is reproduced below for ready reference:--

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had obtained more marks than the respondent No.4 and was eligible to the admission as such the order of the Selection Committee was without lawful authority. The admitted position is that the petitioner had not done his matriculation with Science subject and according to rule 30 (reproduced above) a candidate must have passed the Matriculation examination with Science subjects. The learned counsel submitted that the qualification for admission to the Ist year M.B.,B.S. under paragraphs 29 is that a candidate should have passed the Intermediate with Science (Pre-Medical). The petitioner had passed his F.Sc. examination in Pre-Medical therefore was entitled to the admission. He further submitted that paragraph 30 is inapplicable as it is primarily concerned that a student in Balochistan should be given priority for- admission. We are unable to subscribe to the contention of the learned counsel. The two provisions are to be' read together. Under paragraph 29, the minimum qualification for admission to the Ist Year M.B.,B.S. class has been mentioned and under paragraph 30 a candidate must have passed the Matriculation and Intermediate Examinations with Science and must have studied in Balochistan, unless the Selection Committee gives exemption for sound reasons. Paragraph 30 is to be read in conjunction with paragraph

29. It is not to be read in isolation. Both these provisions apply to all the students who apply for admission to the Medical College." We have therefore no hesitation in concluding that admission granted by Selection Committee to respondent No.4 contravenes the rules and exceeds authority vested in Selection Committee by the provision of prospectus. Reverting to petitioner's claim it may be seen that her name appears at Serial No.3 of Waithing List. Factually even if selection of respondent No.4 (Miss Safla Haider) is declared to be without lawful authority, candidate having next higher marks would automatically become entitled to admission. The relief by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction is based on equitable principles. Therefore, one who seeks equity must do equity, and no undue advantage can be obtained by petitioner superseding or depriving legitimate legal rights accruing to other candidates who have better eligibility on merits within the district. Normally petition instituted by candidates who are not entitled to any relief is not maintainable. But in the instant case, it is heartening to note that Selection Committee had ignored earlier decision of Honourable Supreme Court on the identical principle of law. Under Article 189 of the Constitution decision of Honourable Supreme Court is binding on all the forums. Therefore, glaringly illegal decision taken by Selection Committee cannot be ' allowed to perpetuate, therefore, same must be. exposed. Consequently we are inclined to partly accept the petition and declare selection of respondent No.4 (Miss Safia Haider) through impugned order i totally devoid of lawful authority And of no legal effect. Thus seat allocated to her shall fail vacant. Selection Committee should grant admission to candidate next entitled on the basis of merit list, including the petitioner. , Petition disposed of in the above terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./429/Q Petition partly accepted.