1. MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO,J. -This petition is brought by an unsuccessful candidate who was refused admission in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the academic session of 1978. The short facts forming base of this petition are:-- The petitioner Miss Safia Hameed claims to be bona fide resident of Pishin. To prove her bona fide residence, she relies on the domicile certificate of her father issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin on 8th of June 1976. The domicile certificate bears her name in children's column at S. No. 14. Being qualified for admission in the Medical College for the academic session of 1978, the petitioner sought for admission in the Bolan Medical College against reserved seats of District Pishin.
2. Undisputedly ten seats were reserved for the District. Amongst the girl candidates, the petitioner stood at the top of the list. However, she stood at S. No. 6 on the general merit Despite such beneficial position, the Chairman, Selection Committee refused her admission in the Medical College. Such decision has given grievance to the petitioner to bring this action under Article 199 of the Constitution before this Court.
3. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner's father was in possession of two domicile certificates for a period of about eleven months at one time. One of which was issued by the District Magistrate, Quetta Pishin in 1965, which albeit subsequently cancelled on 4th May 1977 at the request of the petitioner's father. The other certificate was issued by District Magistrate Pishin on 8th of June 1976. Being found in possession of two domicile certificates at one time, the petitioner's bona fide residence in the District of Pishin was found to be doubtful. On such basis, she was earlier refused admission in the Medical College in the year 1977. For the same reasons, the Selection Committee rightly refused admission to the petitioner in the Medical College in this year too.
4. Mr. Khalid Malik vehemently attacked the decision on the Chairman, Selection Committee. He stressed that the Selection Committee on fallacious grounds refused admission to the petitioner in the Medical College. According to him, the flimsy grounds made the decisions of the Selection Committee not only arbitrary but also injudicious one. He stressed that the petitioner being resident of District Pishin had the right of admission against the reserved seats in the Medical College. The learned counsel submitted that with the domicile certificate is attached bona fide of residence.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Mohd. Ahmed Mirza, Mr. Abdul Rashid, Mr. Mohd Arshed and Mr. Munawar Ahmed Mirza counsel for the respondents abortively repudiated stand of Mr. Khalid Malik.
6. Monotonously the learned counsel tried to persuade us that simultaneous possession of two domicile certificates at one time was really sufficient to cast shadow of doubt on her bona fide residence which indeed was sufficient reason to disentitle the petitioner for having right of admission in the Medical College, as was rightly done by the Selection Committee. This contention indeed appears to be fallacious. If we agree with such contention of the learned counsel, indeed we would permanently cement future of the petitioner for getting admission in the Medical College, whether from the reserved seats from District Pishin or from any other District of Baluchistan. It would be really most unfortunate state of affair. As the case is before us and not disputed by the respondents that she is in possession of the domicile certificate of the District Pishin at present.
7. Besides the first domicile certificate of her father issued by the District Magistrate, Quetta has already been cancelled. Indeed the District Magistrate is competent to grant or cancel domicile certificates. Besides there are provisions of appeal etc., made under the rules by the relevant authorities. The rules no--where confer any power or authority upon the Selection Committee to disturb or cancel the domicile certificate issued by the District Magistrate on any ground whatsoever. Such question of bona fide residence of Ghulam Rasool was in dispute in case of Ghulam Rasool v. Government of Baluchistan and 2 others (PLD 1978 Quetta 40One of the members of this Bench had the privi--lege of writing the judgment in that case. The words "bona fide residence" and "domicile" have been elaborately discussed at pages 42, 43 and 44 of the citation. We have no reason to dissent from the principles enunciated in the abovesaid authority, and doubt residence of the petitioner in the District Pishin.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner has in possession of domicile certificate. The certificate has been issued by the District Magistrate; a statutory functionary after a complete probe and enquiry. The certificate for such reasons has the sanctity of a public document unless otherwise rebutted. To support her bona fide residence, the petitioner has rightly relied upon the domicile certificate of her father issued by the District Magistrate of Pishin. Such document indeed establishes the petitioner's bona fide residence in the District Pishin. The proposition is supported from the case reported in Miss Nasreen Fatima Awan v. Principal, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and 4 others (PLD 1978 Quetta 17) (and three connected matters), wherein it has been held:- "That we understand by a domicile certificate, a document which prima facie establishes the place of residence of a person coupled with an intention of residing there permanently unless of course circumstances arise as may compel or induce him to adopt a different place as a permanent domicile. Domicile does convey permanency in residence and with the necessary connotation a domicile certificate does establish, if not conclusively at least by providing presumptive proof of a.
9. Person being a permanent resident of a particular place. The domicile certificate of the father of the petitioner discloses that he arrived in Quetta in 1939-40. We have been informed at Bar that he is in the Police service of Province of Baluchistan."
10. Besides, the petitioner has produced some more documents to establish her bona fide residence in the District of Pishin. The domicile certificateDistrict Magistrate has already led us to the conclusion issued by the that the petitioner is bona fide resident of District Pishin. These documents further strengthen our view.
11. For the reasons discussed above, we have definitely reached the conclusion that the petitioner is bona fide resident of Pishin District consequently she is entitled for admission in the Bolan Medical College against the reserved seats of District Pishin. The Chairman, Selection Committee indeed erroneously rejected here request on fallacious grounds. Such order can be maintained by us.
12. Superior Courts of our country have always condemned arbitrary and injudicious orders.
13. On merit, as already disclosed in the preceding paragraphs the petitioner was having top position amongst the girls candidates. Besides, she was at S. No. 6 on general merit list. On both accounts, she was entitled to admission in the first Year M. B., B. S. Course in the Bolan Medical College. Injustly she has been refused admission in the Medical College. She ought to have been allowed admission in the Medical College by the Selection Committee.
14. On our such view of the case, we declare that the impugned order refusing admission to the petitioner in the Medical . College was passed E without legal authority. It is of no effect. It is set aside. In result, w direct that the petitioner be admitted in the first year M. B., B. S. Course for the academic session of 1978 in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta. However, we make it clear that the students who have been admitted in the Medical College against the allotted seats from the District Pishin, should not be disturbed at any cost. They shall be allowed to continue their studies. If no seat is vacant in the Bolan Medical College to accommo--date the petitioner, one special seat be created in the College for accom--modating the petitioner.
15. With these observations, the petition is allowed. Orders accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
16. ZAKAULLAH LODHI, J.-I agree.