1975 PLP 265 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ J.‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi on the 1st of November 1974, whereby a Constitution petition moved by the petitioner in the matter of her admission to the Bolan Medical College, Quetta, was dismissed. The petitioner is the daughter of a doctor, employed in the Provincial Health Department of the Baluchistan Province, and at present serving as an Assistant Director, Health at Quetta. She claimed to be entitled to admission to the Bolan Medical College on the basis of an announcement appearing in the daily 'Mashriq'. Quetta, on the 30th of January 1974 to the effect that the Provincial Chief Minister had, inter alts, directed that one seat in the College shall be reserved for the children of the doctors of the province for the academic session commencing in March 1974. The authorities concerned, however, gave this reserved seat to respondent No. 3, Iftikhar Ahmad, on the ground that he had secured higher marks in the F. So. (Mud.) Examination and was domiciled in Baluchistan, The petitioner challenged this decision of the admission committee by means of a Constitution petition, but the same was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that, although the father of the successful respondent was serving as a doctor under the Pakistan Western Railway and posted at Khanewal at the time of the respondent's application, yet he had served in Baluchistan from June 1947 to November 1951 and again in August 1962 he was posted at various railway stations in Baluchistan and had acquired a permanent place of residence at Quetta. The learned Judges also took note of the contention advanced by the learned Advocate‑General to the effect that in three letters addressed to the Government of Baluchistan the petitioner's father had repeatedly asserted that he did not possess Baluchistan domicile and that he had no interest in the Baluchistan Province. The High Court has concluded its order by saying that "no doubt the petitioner had also produced a certificate of domicile of her father, but as pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the official respondents could not have altogether ignored the protestation to the contrary made by the petitioner's own father". It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal filed by the petitioner before a high‑powered Committee had been kept pending during the hearing of the Constitution petition in the High Court, and that the said appeal had since been dismissed by this Committee mainly owing to the reason that the High Court had also refused to grant relief to the petitioner. The press announcement made by the Chief Minister of the Baluchistan Province was embodied in the prospectus of the Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the academic session 1974‑

75. On page 6 of the prospectus it is stated that "one seat shall be reserved for the doctors' children". The manner of allocation of this seat is indicated in rule 13 of the general rules for admission (P. 11 of the prospectus), which is in the following terms :‑

13. The criteria for selection of candidates against the doctors' children seat would be as under :‑ (i) Children of doctors working as full time/regular Professors/ Assistant Professors/Demonstrators in the Bolan Medical College. (ii) Children of doctors employed in the Provincial Health Department in Baluchistan Province. (iii) Children of retired Professors/Assistant of Bolan Medical College, and the doctors of the Provincial Health Department. (iv) Children of all Registered Medical Practitioners who are local/ bona fide residents of Baluchistan." The submission on behalf of the petitioner is two‑fold : (a) that the respondent Iftikhar Ahmad was not at all eligible for this seat as he did not fall in any of the four categories specified in this rule ; and (b) that in any case the four categories are mentioned in order of preference, and the petitioner falling under category (ii) should have been given preference the respondent but could at best fall under category (iv). We regret we see no merit in these submissions. As will be seen from enumerated in rule 13, as produced above, the petitioner is (ii), being the daughter of a doctor employed Provincial Health Department 1n Baluchistan Province, Iftikhar Ahmad is covered by category (iv), being the son of a registered medical practitioner who is a bona fide resident of Baluchistan. This category makes eligible children of doctors who are locals of Baluchistan, or who are bona fide residents of Baluchistan. Iftikhar Ahmad's father having obtained domicile of Baluchistan Province, and established his permanent residence at Quetta, was clearly a registered medical practitioner falling within t.;e ambit of clause (iv). Learned counsel for the, petitioner referred us to the case of Muhammad Bibi v. Abdul Ghani (F L J 1975 Kar. 1) in support of his contention that the mere obtaining of a domicile certificate by Iftikhar Ahmad's father would not make him a bona fide resident of Baluchistan. We do not see how this decision is of any avail to the petitioner. We find that on page 5 of the report the learned Judge has adopted with approval the observation of Lord Macmillan in the case of Ramsay v. Liverpool Royal Infirmary (1930 A C 588) to the effect that the residence roust answer a qualitative as will as a quantitative test, and that the Courts have regarded naturalization, purchase of house or burial ground, exercise of political rights, financial expectations, establishment of children in business, the place where a man's wife and family reside as indecia of his intentions in regard to residence. In the present case, the facts found by the relevant authorities are that Iftikhar Ahmad's father was domiciled in Quetta‑Pishin district of Baluchistan Province. On this finding he must he regarded as a bona fide resident of Baluchistan. It is clear, therefore, that the respondent was eligible to the seat reserved for the doctors' children in terms of rule 13 aforesaid. The rule in question does not contain any indication whatsoever that the four categories enumerated therein are to be read as laying down preferences among the doctors' children. The words used in the rule are plain and unambiguous, and go to show that its intention is to spell out the categories of eligibility and not of preferences. Such being the case, the authorities acted rationally and properly in giving preference to candidate with higher marks in the qualifying examination namely F. Sc. (Mud.). It may be stated that the petitioner had obtained 475 marks in this examina tion, whereas respondent Iftikhar Ahmad had obtained

523. On this view of the matter, it is not at all necessary to advert to the question whether any adverse inference should have been drawn against the petitioner on account of certain assertions made by her father in communications addressed to the Provincial Government. Both the candidates having been found to be eligible in terms of rule 13, the one with higher marks in F. Sc. (Mod.) was entitled to the seat reserved for doctors' children. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave refused.