This judgment shall decide W.P. No, 720/05 and W.P. No, 375/05 as somewhat common questions are involved.
2. (i) W.P. No, 720/05 Muhammad Abi Waqas petitioner is domiciled in District Lodhran, studied upto Matric in a School in Muzaffargarh and passed his Matriculation Examination (Annual, 2001) (Science Group) vide Certificate Annex: 'A' issued by BISE. Dera Ghazi Khan. However, he passed his Intermediate Parts-I and II Annual Examination, 2004 from BISE, Lahore (Annex: B').
(ii) W.P. 375/05 Mahboob Alam petitioner is domiciled in District Lodhran. He passed his Matric Examination (Annual, 2002) (Science Group) from a school in Muzaffargarh and Intermediate from a Higher Secondary School in Muzaffargarh, vide Certificates Annexes: 'B' and `B/1' issued by BISE, D.G. Khan.
3. Pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst.
Attiyya Bibi Khan and others vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Education (Ministry of Education), Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2001 SCM R 1161) four seats were reserved for District Lodhran as an under-developed District in the prospectus for the Sessions 2004-2005 for the Government Medical Colleges in the Punjab. These seats were reserved in the Nishter Medical College, Multan. The grievance being made out in these writ petitions is that notwithstanding the fact that the two writ petitioners are domiciled in Lodhran and that they have also completed their education from another under-developed District, namely, Muzaffargarh, they have not been admitted to a Medical College against the said reserved seats although they were eligible for the same.
4. Before I proceed further I may note that it has been stated at the bar by the learned AAG under instructions from the said officer, present in Court, that all the four seats reserved in Lodhran District have since been filled up and the candidates admitted are domiciled in Lodhran and they have completed their relevant education in Lodhran.
5. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these two cases urge that upon a proper reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Mst. Attiyya Bibi Khan and others, and the relevant provisions of the prospectus, it can safely be inferred that a candidate who is domiciled in Lodhran and has completed his education in Muzaffargarh, both being under-developed Districts, would be entitled to be admitted to the seats reserved for Lodhran. Mr. Arif Alvi, Advocate, has gone a step further to state in the matter of his client that the domicile of Lodhran would be enough and notwithstanding the fact that he cleared his Intermediate Examination from Lahore would be of little consideration. Learned AAG, on the other hand, contends that the seats have been reserved in the said under-developed Districts in strict accordance with the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the relevant provisions of the Prospectus have also been worded in accordance with the judgment and the policy adopted has been followed strictly inasmuch as all admissions to reserved seats have been made on the same basis i,e, only such candidates have been admitted to the seats reserved in Lodhran who were domiciled in Lodhran and they also completed their education in Lodhran.
6. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Law Officer. No doubt, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners particularly of Mr. Abdul Hakeem for Mahboob Alam petitioner do appear to be attractive at a first glance but upon a close scrutiny in the light of the circumstances of these cases, hold little water.
7. Now several persons challenged the reservation of seats on the ground that the same is violative of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of the country. The matter ultimately went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Mst. Attiyya Bibi Khan and others and was resolved accordingly. The portion of the judgment relevant to these cases appears at page 1187 of the report and is as follows: "In the same spirit Articles 22 and 25 of the Constitution permit special provision to be made for women and children or socially or educationally backward and undeveloped classes. Therefore, reservation of seats for such category may be justified. It must, however, be pointed out that the benefit of such reservation should only be confined to those who have acquired their school and intermediate education from such less developed areas and not to anyone who manages to obtain a domicile certificate from that area."
The directions were reiterated in the case of Abdul Baqi and others v. Muhammad Akram and others (PLD 2003 SC 163). Consequentially, the seats were reserved for under-developed Districts, inter alia, in Multan Division. These are as follows: Sr. Name of District No, of Seats.
1. Rajanpur 2(1 for settled and 1 for tribal areas
2. Lodhran 2
3. D.G. Khan 3(2 for settled and one for tribal areas.
4. Muzaffargarh 2 The conditions are worded in the following terms:--
(i) The candidate must have a domicile of the same Districts Areas, and must have completed his/her school and Higher Secondary Education from the same Districts Area."
Now Mr. Arif Alvi, Advocate, is of the view that the term "Districts Areas" used in the said condition is not to be read disjunctively. According to the learned counsel, the term "Districts" referred to the District of domicile while the term "Areas" referred to the entire area of the undeveloped Districts. I am afraid the contention does not have any force. It will be seen that in the matter of Rajanpur and Dera Ghazi Khan, some seats are reserved for settled areas and some sects. are reserved for the tribal areas. To my mind, the term "Districts" is referable to the specific under-developed District while the term "Areas", is referable to the tribal area in question.
8. Needless to state that the matters have been stated in unambiguous term in the Prospectus for the relevant year and it is to be assumed that applications have been filed with reference to the same. The factual position stated by the learned AAG that admissions have, in fact, been made in accordance with the said declared policy which in its turn has been framed in compliance with the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, have not been controverted. I may further note here that in para-12 of the said judgment in the case of Mst. Attiyya Bibi Khan and others the Apex Court directed the respective Governments to identify socially and educationally backward areas in order to enable the children receiving education in such areas to qualify for admission to Medical Colleges against reserved seats. This needful has since been done. There is no allegation that any candidate has been so admitted in violation of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
9. Thus, upon a reading of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the policy framed, in compliance therewith, the only possible interpretation is the one being made by the learned A.A.G., i,e,, the candidate must have a domicile in the identified under-developed District and must have completed his requisite education in the said District to entitle him to apply for admission to the seat reserved for that particular District. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.