1989 PLP 185 (SCMR)

Mr. Yakub K. Eusafzai, learned Advocate‑General argued before us on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that under para. 28 of the Prospectus of the Bolan Medical College Quetta the candidates seeking admission to the college are required to produce before the Selection Committee a local certificate issued by the D.C./D.M. of the respective district or a domicile certificate issued by the D.M. of the district under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder. This provision determines the eligibility of the candidates for if they had a local certificate of Quetta where the college is located and where the educational facilities are better than the other backward or less privileged districts of Baluchistan, then their applications for admission are to be considered on merits. But if they arc seeking admission on the basis of local certificates issued by D.Cs./D.Ms. of backward districts then in order to not deprive them from admission they are taken on the reserved seats for such districts. The reasoning of the learned Advocate‑General is that so far as the appellant was concerned, he or his other brothers may have obtained local certificates indicating that they hailed from District Kalat. But in the case of the brothers of the appellant no one had raised any objection, and therefore on the basis of such local certificates they managed to get admission 'on that reserved seats. However, in the case of the appellant objection was raised through an application by respondent No. 3 Sarfraz Ahmad who was contesting for admission as he was from District Kalat and his contention was that the appellant was not a resident of Kalat District but of Quetta. It was further submitted that so far as the reasons which weighed with the respondent No. 1 in refusing to restore the local certificate of the appellant are concerned, the details of the same had been given in his order dated 13th December, 1986. These are as follows:‑‑ "(1) Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim has never, got education in Kalat District at any stage. (2) Assistant Commissioner, Kalat has reported that neither the applicant nor his father, any house ,in village Iskalko of Kalat. (3) Mohammad Ismail Shahwani who is the father of the applicant is a known figure of Killi Sabzal of Quetta. He has been elected as Councillor from Quetta and has remained a member of the District Council, Quetta. (4) Killi Sabzal of Quetta has been named after the grandfather of applicant Sabzal Khan suggesting that the family has been living, in Quetta for at least three generations. (5) The identity card of applicant's father has been issued from Quetta. (6) The identity card of the applicant himself is doubtful and details have been given in my earlier order dated 17‑9‑1986, Moreover, in order to save himself from querries of the Registration Office, the applicant while submitting the form in the office has termed his father as dead. (7) The names of the entire family are entered in the electoral rolls of Killi Sabzal of Quetta. (8) Eversince the introduction of Ration Dealers' Scheme the entire family has been getting ration etc. from Authorised Ration Dealers of Quetta. (9) The only claim Mohammad Ibrahim has is that he belongs to Shahwani tribe and the witnesses produced by him also belong to Shahwani tribe and I do not consider their testimony reliable. (10) The father of the applicant has properties in the following areas of Quetta: (1) Killi Sabzal, (2) Killi Khairullah Sumingly boa (3) Killi Poodgli, and (4) Killi Kachi Baig Goograi. Learned Advocate‑General further submitted that so far as the findings of fact are concerned these had been decided against the appellant and in the circumstances respondent No. 1 was justified in cancelling the local certificate previously issued by him or his predecessor‑in‑office in favour of the appellant particularly when an objection to the same had been raised. It was next submitted that it was not that the respondent No. 1 reviewed his order but it was based on unrebuttable circumstances and was neither capricious nor perverse. Furthermore, these circumstances had not been controverted or contradicted by the appellant. In that view of the matter the High Court in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which was discretionary was justified in refusing to grant the relief claimed by the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The appellant has objected to the 10 grounds on the basis of which respondent No. 1 has cancelled his local certificate in para. 6 of his grounds of appeal before us. His case is that in the circumstances his local certificate could not be cancelled. But evidently the reasons given for cancellation by respondent No. 1 in his order had nowhere been denied by the appellant, although his reasoning is that his three elder brothers were granted local certificates by D.C. Kalat and that his father owned some landed property in the said district. Be that as it may, the facts which cannot be denied are that the appellant and his father are at present residents of Quetta. They live in a house which they have constructed in Quetta. They did not own any house in village Iskalkoo District Kalat and thus they have now become permanent residents of Quetta with no intention of reverting to their original home i.e., Village Iskalkoo District Kalat. If his brothers had been granted local certificates then may be at that time they were residing in Village Iskalkoo or no one had raised objection or challenged the issuance of local certificates in their favour. But in the case of the appellant cogent reasons had been given by respondent No. 1 for cancelling his local certificate. He had in the previous academic year applied for admission but did not succeed because of less marks. This time he applied by making out a case of his eligibility on the basis of reserved scats from a backward district. This was objected to by respondent No. 3 who was also seeking admission from the reserved seats for Kalat and succeeded in getting the local certificate of the appellant cancelled as he was depriving a' candidate, who belonged to a backward district for obtaining admission. In the circumstances the respondent No. 1 was empowered to cancel the cerrtificate', previously issued in favour of the appellant on erroneous grounds and it did not amount to reviewing his order or that of his predecessor‑in‑office, in any sense of the term. Thus, since the findings of fact had been decided against the appellant, we do not find any substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M‑613/S Appeal dismissed.