' ZAKAULLAH LODHI, J.-The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Thup, Tehsil Mashkel, District Loralai. Due to a family feud over some grazing lands petitioner's father temporarily left for Bhakkar, in the Province of the Punjab, where the petitioner qualified his Intermediate Examination from Sargodha Board in the year 1978, securing 563 marks out of a thousand (Annexure `A'). He was also entitled to additional 20 marks on account of his N. C. C. Training (Annexure B). This year he applied for admission to Bolan Medical College supporting his application with requisite character certificate dated 19th March, 1979 (Annexure "C"), a certificate by the District Magistrate, Loralai dated 3rd January, 1978, certifying that he belonged to an indigenous tribe of Loralai District (Annexure "D"), and a permanent residence certificate dated 22nd January, 1979 issued by the same authority endorsing that he belonged to the above-said village it District Loralai (Annexure "E"). He was summoned by the Selection Committee (the first respondent herein) which desired to make further probe into the circumstances which had led to his father's migration to Punjab.
Obviously it was done with a view to see whether or not he was entitled to avail of the exemption clause contained in para. 26 of the prospectus which otherwise required that a candidate applying for admission should have been educated in the province. For a reference this paragraph is reproduced below : "The candidate must have passed the Matriculation and Intermediate Science (Medical Group) examinations from Baluchistan (unless the candidate could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reasons for not studying in Baluchistan for claiming exemption from the operation of this condition".
2. Despite receiving a detained reply from the District Magistrate, Loralai that petitioner was a genuine local residence of Loralai District and his father had to leave his native place owing to compulsion of adverse circumstances, the first respondent, rejected his application on 2nd June, 1979 on the sole ground that he had failed to produce any document to show that he had received primary education from Loralai and thus he was not a local resident of Loralai District. This would be evident from the operative part of the decision which is reproduced below "He was asked to produce primary and middle education certificate before the Selection Committee to establish that he has stayed in Loralai District. He failed to produce any such certificate. He admitted before the Selection Committee that he received all his education in the Punjab. He could not give any cogent reasons for studying outside Baluchistan right from primary to F. Sc. The application of Mr. Masha Khan son of Lal Khan is rejected."
3. The petitioner has now approached this Court to assail the said order of the first respondent dated 2nd June, 1979 as illegal and without jurisdiction, having been passed keeping the evidence on record deliberately out of consideration.
4. Mr. Khalid Malik, appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order was arbitrary as it proceeded in ignorance of overwhelming documentary evidence on record which, according to him, was sufficient to satisfy any reasonable person that the petitioner was a genuine resident of District Loralai, and it was perforce of adverse circumstances that he and his family had migrated to Punjab, where the petitioner also received his education. He further pointed out that petitioner's father or the petitioner himself never attempted to obtain domicile certificate from any place in the Punjab and petitioner's father continued to retain property in his native village as was evident from the copy off Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 (Annexure "K") as such, he retained his character of a local resident of District Loralai absolutely unblemished. He also referred to the enquiry report of the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai which was given at the instance of the Selection Committee itself. It is a detailed document addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai, to the D. M. L. A. Sector-1, Quetta Division, Quetta on 5th April, 1979 (Annexure "J") who also happened to be a member of respondent Committee. This report furnishes requisite details first of the circumstances in which petitioner's father had to migrate to Punjab and secondly it provides all necessary particulars upon which the petitioner's claim that he belonged to Loralai District was based. He has confirmed that the petitioner was a Kudezai Belkhal by caste and belonged to village Thup in Loralai District and held a local certificate, a permanent residence certificate, and a certificate issued by the concerned Tehsildar showing petitioner's father's permanent residence in the said village as well as the nature of the dispute that he had with his relatives which finally compelled him to migrate to the Punjab, and also that the dispute having been settled some time back he had returned and settled down in the said village again. He also confirmed that the said certificates were found to be absolutely genuine upon scrutiny any that he was entitled to avail of a seat out of the seats reserved for the students of Loralai District in the Medical College. Normally this report should have been sufficient to convince the first respondent that the petitioner was a genuine local of Loralai, as he being at the apex of district administration was competent to give a verdict on this point. Of course, this report as well as other documents, could be disbelieved if more convincing and authoritative evidence was available to the contrary ; but that too could be done with cogent reasoning. Unfortunately in this case the first respondent did not even touch this evidence ; much less its rejection with reasons. Mr. Basharatullah learned Advocate-General attempted to justify the impugned order by interpreting it in the light of para. 26 herein-before mentioned, and argued that the Committee as an administrative bod had every right under the Prospectus to use its discretion in one way or the other, and that it may not be called into question.
It is true that the Committee is possessed with ample discretion in such matters and we would never be inclined to substitute or satisfaction with that of the Committee on any finding of fact ; but only when it is objective, reasonable and just. Discretion is not synonymous to arbitrariness, whims or caprice. The very idea is abhorring. Law stands to be given effect and not to be flouted. It is apparent from the impugned order that the first respondent had focused all its attention mainly on the question that since the petitioner had received education outside Baluchistan and had not been able to place before it the certificates education upto primary and middle class, therefore he was not local of Loralai and was finally disentitled to avail of the said exemption. 4 It should be clear to the learned Advocate-General that in forming such opinion entire relevant evidence was completely ignored and that is what would categorise the impugned order, as nothing but whimsical. It is not even a case of improper exercise of discretion which might have persuaded us to take a milder view. A case involving exercise of discretion, would be one in which after due consideration of relevant material an authority finds that two different views of the matter were possible, both equally weighty and adopts one of them. In such a case the view adopted would not be interfered with, no matter how incompatible it might appear to be to an aggrieved person.
Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned order is bad being highly unjust and arbitrary and cannot be saved by confusing it with the question of exercise of discretion. Recently in C. P. No, 185/79 (1981 CLC 728) and 140/79 (1981 CLC 725) the question as to what should be the nature of the orders acceptable in or judicial system was discussed in great detail and in the light of Miss Nasreen Fatima Awan and others v, Government of Baluchistan and others (1) it was held that arbitrary decisions should be struck down with a heavy hand in the exercise of or constitution duty, being without jurisdiction. As to the contention of learned Advocate-General that the first respondent had not transgressed its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, suffice it to say that jurisdiction means nothing else but careful application of relevant laws to the facts of a case by a competent authority. Further the conclusions that flow as a result of this process should manifest by themselves proper application of mind. An order incapable of coming up to this test is not an order with jurisdiction. Mr. Malik placed before us the case of Ghulam {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1978 Quetta 17 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' Rascal and others v. The Government of Baluchistan and 'others (1) which also dealt with a case of similar nature. The order passed by the Selection Committee was set aside as it had failed to apply its mind to the facts relevant for the decision of that case.
5. Mr. Memon appeared for the third respondent who is likely to be affected by the decision of this petition as he occupies the lowest position in order of merit and was wrongly admitted to the college in preference to the petitioner. He tried to support the impugned order by placing reliance upon the electoral roll of Tehsil Bhakkar in which the name of the petitioner appears as a voter. He tried to persuade us to believe that by getting himself registered as a voter he had provided conclusive proof of his permanent settlement at Bhakkar. But the facts speak otherwise. Despite obtaining repeated adjournments on the ground that he wanted to place before us domicile certificate of petitioner's father, allegedly secured by him from some district in the Punjab and other documents on the point, he regretted today that he was not in a position to get hold of any such document. This clearly means non-existence of any such material and finally the absence of any overt act on the part of the petitioner's father to permanently settle down in the Punjab. Rather, he continued to retain property at Loralai and returned to his native village once the family dispute was over. It clearly speaks of his intentions not to forsake his native town. He also seems to be forgetting that the laws governing preparation of electoral rolls do not demand permanent settlement of any person at a particular place so as to be enlisted as a voter. Instead any Pakistani living in any part of the country for the time being can avail of the right of franchise. Resultantly, this document is devoid of sufficient evidentiary force to disturb petitioner's claim. The argument is thus repelled.
6. Dealing with the scope of interference of this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction he placed before us. Muhammad Hayat v. Crown (2) which case dealt with the question of unlawful detention and gave out the dictum that the cases in which detaining authority had enough material before it, and had also properly applied its mind to the same for arriving at the conclusion that detention of a person was necessary ; this Court would not, upset such opinion in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
This case is highly inapt and inapplicable to the facts of the instant case which involves an order passed in disregard to the evidence on record. This argument is equally devoid of weight.
' For the foregoing reasons we allow this petition ; but with no orders as to costs, and declare the impugned order to be illegal and without jurisdiction and direct the concerned respondents to admit the petitioner to Bolan Medical College during the current academic year. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1978 Quetta 40 (1) PLD 1951 FC 15 {{FOOT NOTE}}