1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 8th of October 1978, delivered by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan at Quetta; accepting the Constitution petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein against the present appellants and the remaining respondents, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that Miss Safia Hameed daughter of Abdul Hamid, respondent No. 1, applied for admission against one out of the 10 seats reserved for candidates from District Pishin, for admission to the First Year M. B., B. S. Class in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the academic session 1978. Along with her application, in addition to the other documents, she also enclosed a domicile certificate dated 8th of June. 1976 issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin to the effect that her father Haji Abdul Hamid was a domicile of Chaman, Tehsil Chaman, District Pishin. It appears that at the interview, before the Selection Committee of the College, some of the contesting respondents Nos. 5 and 6 raised the objection that respondent No. '1 was in possession of two domicile certificates at the same time, the first one bearing No. 2799/51159-Citz dated 22nd of April 1965 issued by the District Magistrate Quetta to the effect that her `father was a domicile of Quetta, Tehsil Quetta, District Quetta/Pishin, in addition to the one dated the 8th of May 1976 on which she had relied issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin to the effect that her father Haji Abdul Hamid is a domicile of Chaman, Tehsil Chaman, District Pishin. At the time of interview before the Selection Committee respondent No. 1 also relied on a copy of letter No. 1939/CItL dated 4th of May 1977 signed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Quetta, stating that the domicile certificate issued by him on 23-4-1965 stood cancelled. The Selection Committee of the College however, refused the admission to respondent No.1 giving effect to the objection raised by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 on the following grounds :---- "They (the objectors) have also produced an attested copy of the Domicile Certificate No. 2399/5/59 Citz dated 22nd of April 1965 issued by the District Magistrate, Quetta. Miss Safia Hameed also produced letter No. 1939/Citz dated 4-5-1977 signed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Quetta stating that the domicile certificate referred to above stands cancelled. Haji Abdul Hamid son of Sikandar Khan obtained a domicile certificate from the District Magistrate, Pishin on 8th June 1976. He applied for the cancella--petition of his Quetta domicile certificate and got it cancelled in May 1977. It means that the said Haji Abdul Hamid was in possession of two domicile certificates from Quetta and Pishin District for a period of 11 months. Miss Safia Hameed appeared during 1976 for admission to Bolan Medical College when she was in possession of two domicile certificates. She did not get a seat on account of low merit position. In 1977 she again appeared before the Selection Committee on the strength of a domicile certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin on 8th May 1976. Her case was again rejected on the ground of a doubtful domicile certificate as she could not prove her permanent residence in Pishin District. This year, i.e. 1978 Miss Safia Hameed again appeared and claimed a seat from Pishin District. From the observations made above, it seems that Haji Abdul Hamid has all along been doing his level best to misrepresent the facts before the Selection Committee from time to time. It seems that while changing the domicile certificates he was entertaining mala fide intentions. The Committee, therefore, does not see any tenable ground to accept the domicile certificate which Haji Abdul Hamid has managed at later stage from Pishin District and, therefore, her application is rejected."
3. Dissatisfied by this order passed by the Selection Committee of the College, Miss Safia Hameed respondent No. 1 filed the Constitution petition against it under Article 199 of the Constitution. On the 8th of October 1978, a learned Division Bench, of the High Court of Baluchistan accepted her petition. The Court was of the opinion that admittedly respondent No. 1 was in possession of the domicile certificate dated 8th of June 1976 showing that at the time her father was a domicile of Pishin District and the certificate issued in his favour by the District Magistrate, Quetta, in the year 1965 had 'already been cancelled. In these circumstances in the opinion of the High Court under the rules the Selection Committee had no power and lawful authority to "disturb or cancel the domicile certificate issued by the District Magistrate on any ground whatever". In conclusion the learned Bench of the High Court held that respondent No. 1 was a bona fide resident of Pishin District and consequently she was entitled for admission in the Bolan Medical College against the quota of the seats reserved for candidates from Pishin District and that the Selection Committee had erroneously rejected her application for admission to the College on arbitrary, fallacious and untenable grounds. On the merits respondent No. 1 having topped the list amongst the girls candidates, she also stood at No. b on the general merit list and on both these grounds she was entitled to the admission in the First Year class of the M. B., B. S. Course in the Bolan Medical College.
4. The High Court, therefore, declared that the impugned order refusing the admission to respondent No. 1 in the Medical College was passed by the Selection Committee without lawful - authority and had no legal effect. In conclusion therefore, the Court directed :--
(1) That respondent No. 1 be admitted in the First Year M. B. B. S. Course in the 'Bolan Medical College for the academic session of 1978 ; and
(2) That the students who had already been admitted by the Selection Committee in the Medical College against the allotted seats for the students from the Districts Pishin should not be disturbed at any costs. They should be allowed to continue their studies and if no seat was vacant in the Bolan Medical College to accommodate respondent No. 1. One special seat may be created in the College for accommodating her.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal. According to rule 23(5) (iv) of the Prospectus of the Bolan Medical College, Academic Session, 1978, the application of a candidate for admission to the course in the College must be accompanied by "a local/domicile certificate from the District Magistrate of the District on the prescribed pro forma". Admittedly, in compliance with this requirement of the rule respondent No. 1 had filed a copy of the domicile certificate dated 8th of May 1976 issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin to the effect that her father Haji Abdul Hameed was a domicile of Chaman, Tehsil Chaman, District Pishin. In the circumstances of this case we have no hesitation in holding with the learned Division Bench of the High Court that the Selection Committee was not justified in doubting its validity by attempting to go behind it for no sufficient reasons whatever. Indeed, the mere fact that before it the District Magistrate, Quetta had also issued a domicile certificate No. 2399/5/ 59-Citz dated 22nd of April 1965 that Abdul Hami father of respondent No. 1 was a domicile of Quetta, Tehsil Quetta, District Quetta did not detract against the validity of the second domicile Certificate issued by the District Magistrate Pishin afterwards after more than eleven years on the 8th of May 1976 according to the facts found to his satisfaction at the time that Haji Abdul Hamid was a domicile of Chaman, Tehsil Chaman, District Pishin. It was all the more so because a copy of the letter No. 1939/Citz dated 4th of May 1977, produced by respondent No. 1, showed that the District; Magistrate, Quetta had himself cancelled the previously issued certificate dated 22nd of April 1965 in lawful' exercise of the discretion vested in him. Surely, the Selection Committee was not justified in sitting in appeal over this cancellation order or doubting its bona fides. It was rather un-charitabe for them to have made those unsavoury remarks based on surmises.
6. These certificates are issued by the authorised District Magistrates in accordance with the provisions contained in section 17 of PakistanCitizenship Act, 1951 read with rule 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952 and the issuing Authority is also vested by him. Indeed, rule 23 (b) of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, inter alia, lays down that any authority to whom an application for a domicile certificate is presented may demand such evidence as it may consider necessary for satisfying itself that the facts stated in the application are correct and that the applicant has been continually resident in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year and intends to live permanently in Pakistan". This lends support to the contention that the place of domicile of an applicant may even change under the changed circumstances and there was no contradiction involved in the two domicile certificates issued in the name of the father of respondent No. 1 issued in the year 1965 and then again in the year 1976, after a lapse of more than eleven years. Indeed in this connection it is also pertinent to point out that the Selection Committee, in rejecting the domicile certificate dated 8th of May 1976, issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin, did not even care to examine other cogent documentary evidence placed on the record by respondent No. 1 in support of her case that she and her father are the bona fide and permanent residents of Chaman District Pishin. According to a copy of another certificate, dated the 21st of March 1977, issued by the District Magistrate, Pishin respondent No. 1 is a permanent resident of Chaman (District Pishin). Her father was living in Chaman for the past about 30 years doing his business there. He is also holding immovable property in Chama in his name from 1948. A certificate issued by the Registrar of Examinations, Quetta, Kalat on 4-2-1969 shows that Abdul Waheed (a brother of respondent No. 1) son of Abdul Hamid; a regular student from the Government High School, Chaman passed the Middle Standard (Anglo Vernacular) Examination held in December 1958. Her father Abdul Hamid had also purchased substantial house property situated in Chaman vide the registered sale deed dated 14-2-1952 (copy produced). In the face of this overwhelmingly strong evidence it was therefore, difficult to hold that 'the respondent No 1. And her father were not permanent residents of Chaman and the impugned order passed by the Selection Committee could not be sustained. To this extent, therefore, the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of the High Court accepting the Constitution petition of respondent No. 1 is unexceptionable.
7. Before us however, the learned counsel for the appellants has forcefully contended that at any rate, the High Court was not at all justified and had .No lawful authority in directing the appellants that the students who had already been admitted in the Medical College against the allotted seats in question from the District Pishin should not be disturbed on this count; that they should be allowed to continue their studies and that if no seat was vacant in the Bolan Medical College to accommodate respondent No. 1, one special seat be created in the College for accommodating her. In this respect we have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel that the High Court had no lawful authority under Article 199 of the Constitution in thus interfering with the internal management of the Bolan Medical College by the authorities and issue any such directions to them. Strictly speaking it was entirely for the College authorities to see how best to comply with the lawful directions issued by the High Court in. The exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution and provide a seat to respondent No.1 to which she was declared entitled.
8. Beyond that it was for the College authorities to devise ways and mean in making any suitable consequential changes as a result of the judgment with due regard to the circumstances of the case. At the same time we cannot help observing that the unhappy situation in which the affected students appearing before us are placed, arose because of the erroneous and unsustainable older passed by the Selection Committee in the first instance. The responsibility for it solely lies on them for no fault on the part of these students. In the fitness of the circumstances the College authorities while making consequential changes in providing the seat to respondent No. 1 in compliance with order passed by the High Court should be guided by humane considerations not to do injustice or incalculable wrong to the others for no fault on their part. These are mere guidelines for the benefit of the College authorities to follow in the exercise of the lawful discretion vested in them.
9. On principle we have already upheld the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court had no lawful authority vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere in the internal Management of College by , its authorities. In spite of this, as it is, these rival candidates, respondents Nos. 2 to 6, were allowed the admission to the first year M. B., B. S. Course for the academic session 1978 and the High Court, although erroneously, also deemed it fit to provide a cover to them by directing the College authorities that, if necessary, an additional seat may be created for respondent No. 1. We, however, find the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were allowed the admission to the College for no fault on their part and in the hope that they shall continue on the rolls of the College as bona fide students. It has thus in all probability become too late to now reverse the process. In case any one of them is made to leave the College at this stage and thus interfere with his studies, he is bound to suffer irreparable loss resulting in injustice to him, for no fault on his part. This Court is not bound to interfere in case it is likely to result in injustice. In these peculiar circumstances, although while disagreeing in principle with the Division Bench of the High Court on the part of the case, yet we have declined to interfere with a view not to do' any injustice to any of the respondent in the light of all these developments.
10. This appeal-therefore, fails and is rejected with no order as to costs.