' MUFTAKHIRUDDIN, J.-The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Selection Committee for admission to the Bolan Medical College, Quetta whereby she has been ignored for admission to the Medical College and has prayed that the impugned order Annexure `Z-5' may be declared as void, illegal and without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the respondent No, 2 (Principal Bolan Medical College, Quetta) may be directed to admit the petitioner in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta in place of respondent No, 3 Muhammad Rafiq son of Ahmad Khan.
2. The facts material for the determination of the petition are that Miss Lubna Hafeez's father has come to join services at Khuzdar as Statistical Assistant on or about 20th November, 1966 and remained posted upto 1972 when on the dismemberment of the Kalat Division he was transferred to Quetta but meanwhile the petitioner's mother got employed as Junior English Teacher in the Divisional Public School Khuzdar in July, 1971. She subsequently became Senior English Teacher and was even posted as Principal of the said school. However, on or' about 25th September, 1981 her service were dispensed with but soon thereafter she got another appointment at Khuzdar in the Federal Government Public School thus the mother of the petitioner continued residing at Khuzdar and alongwith her the petitioner bad been living and received her education upto the year 1978 when the petitioner passed her Matriculation examination whereafter, since no college for women was there at Khuzdar, she had to join for her F. Sc. Examination the Quetta Government College for Women as a student from Khuzdar and was awarded scholarship by the Scholarship Board of Khuzdar as student of Khuzdar. The petitioner's younger brother Khuram Hafeez also studied from Nursery to 5th Class and a certificate was issued in this behalf which form part of this record and these facts contained therein are not disputed. Although the petitioners' father on account of his transfer was transferred from. Khuzdar, but the family consisting of the petitioner, her brother and sisters all along resided at Khuzdar. The petitioner's father also did not abunden that residence. In the year 1973 on the application made by the father of the petitioner a certificate under the Citizenship Act, 1951 was issued. This certificate included the name of the petitioner and remained undisputed a few days before the consideration of the application of the petitioner for a seat in the Bolan IV edical College, Quetta when it was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Khuzdar. On the basis thereof the petitioner was not considered for admission to the Bolan Medical College from Khuzdar District. This cancellation of the certificate was challenged by the petitioner and her father through a Constitutional Petition No, 215 of 1982 and was allowed by this Court. The order of cancellation of the certificate was declared without jurisdiction and lawful authority and it was ordered that the Selection Committee will decide her entitlement to admission according to the prospectus and law. This order was made by this Court on 24th October, 1982 whereafter on 30th October, 1982 the father of the petitioner approached the Principal Bolan Medical College through an application in writing whereby the decision of the High Court was conveyed and it was prayed that Miss Lubna Hafeez be considered for admission to the Medical College on merits. It is not denied that the name of Miss Lubna Hafeez appears at No, 1 of the list prepared for the Khuzdar District. It is alleged in the petition that though necessary documents pertaining to her education to Khuzdar, the services of her mother at Khuzdar as well as of her father and the purchase of plot by the petitioner's father at Khuzdar were produced before the Selection Committee but no decision was announced. It is also alleged which fact is not controverted that after the submission of these papers and other material as required under the prospectus no enquiry was made by the Selection Committee either by itself or through any other agency and the documents produced and relied upon remained unrebutted. The Selection Committee, however, did not select the petitioner but instead recommended the name of the candidates whose name appear in Daily Mashriq, dated 23rd February, 1983 produced in this Court and annexed as Annexure `Z-4'. The petitioner's father approached the Selection Committee for the copy of the Selection Committee's decision but at that time no copy was issued, however later the copy of the extract from the minutes of the meeting of Selection Committee of Bolan Medical College, Quetta in respect of Miss Lubna Hafeez daughter of Abdul Hafeez Khan from Khuzdar District had been obtained and annexed as `Z-5'. This document is undated and is impugned in this petition because by the decision as contained in this extract the application of Miss Lubna Hafeez has been rejected. This is impugned in this Constitutional petition.
3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Selection Committee has misdirected itself and has been led away by some considerations which were not relevant for the determination of the issues involved and the documentary evidence which remained unrebutted has been ignored and the decision thus arrived at is rendered illegal and without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In order to appreciate the contention it is necessary that the reasons for the non-selection of the petitioner as given by the Selection Committee in the impugned order may be mentioned. These reasons are (1) that she stated that her family migrated from India, (2) her father has obtained property in Faisalabad, (3) her father came to Kalat for service, and (4) that Miss Lubna Hafeez was born at Faisalabad. On these considerations it was held that the petitioner did not actually belong to Khuzdar and cannot be considered at a genuine candidate from that District. It is significant that no record or any statement whereupon this impression has been based by the committee is placed on record. The fact that the family migrated from India or that the petitioner's father came to Kalat or that the petitioner was born at any other place other than Khuzdar have no relevance at all. The fact that the petitioner's father had obtained any property in Faisalabad has been denied through an affidavit sworn and produced in this Court. The consideration that the petitioner's father came to Khuzdar for service does not require any denial as it is an admitted feature that Mr. Abdul Hafeez Khan joined services at Khuzdar in 1966. These facts do not offend any rule of the prospectus nor on that basis it can be legitimately contended that the petitioner did not belong to Khuzdar. These considerations are, therefore, foreign to the matter in issue. The only points relevant for the determination of the case was whether the petitioner has been maintained throughout by her mother and her father that she was permanently residing at Khuzdar was true or otherwise. Any other consideration was not relevant at all. The facts of the case have been noticed by this Court is the judgment pronounced in C.P. No, 215 of 1982 and it was held in clew terms that the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction and lawful authority to cancel the certificate issued to the father of the petitioner. This judgment attained finality as it was not challenge in any Court competent to reverse or modify this decision. The cancellation of the certificate was the only reason assigned by the Selection Committee for the rejection of the application of the petitioner for one of the seats reserved for Khuzdar but since that consideration was removed altogether by the decision of this Court in C.P. No, 215 of 1982 the petitioner had become entitled to be considered. The assertions of the petitioner's father as contained in the application for the grant of certificate became a matte past and closed and in view of the judgment of this Court no contrary inference can be allowed to be taken. Additionally for reason that an enquiry was conducted by the committee, rather the District Magistrat has reaffirmed the fact of residence of the petitioner in Khuzdar and certified that the petitioner is permanently residing at Khuzdar. It is also established beyond doubt that the mother of the petitioner alongwith he children has been continuously residing at Khuzdar. The continuous residence of the petitioner and her education at Khuzdar upto Matriculation and thereafter in F. Sc. From Quetta (as no Intermediate College is available at Khuzdar) as a scholarship-holder from Khuzdar cannot be possible rebutted nor have been rebutted even before us. These facts established beyond doubt that Miss Lubna Hafeez belongs to Khuzdar and this aspect of the case cannot be brushed aside by a statement contained in the Selection Committee's decision. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has force and we have no hesitation in holding that the members of the Selection Committee were led away by a consideration which was not relevant for the determination of the issue involved and have failed to consider the evidence which the Committee was bound to consider and should have considered. The finding to the contrary as given by the Selection Committee cannot be considered as sacrosanct and ware of the considered opinion that if such a power is conceded in favour of Committee than under the garb of that power the judgment of this Court in C.P. No, 215 of 1982 as referred to above can be set at naught. The Committee according to us has misdirected itself to a question which is totally foreign to the consideration on which the admission are sought, and it has travelled beyond its jurisdiction and powers and had thus committed an error apparent on the face of the record and has acted on consideration totally irrelevant and outside the scope of law and in the circumstances of the case the powers of supervision under write jurisdiction of this Court are attracted. This view finds support from the conversations of their Lordships in case of Behram Kharsandian v. Collector of Customs . As held therein that when the tribunal or authority travels beyond its jurisdiction or commits error apparent on the face of the record or acts on consideration totally irrelevant and outside the scope of law, the superior Courts can grant relief in supervisory capacity and in such cases the High Court acts not as an appellate authority but in a supervisory capacity in order to control the tribunals and watch that they act within the scope of their authority of jurisdiction and to see that the law has not been disobeyed. Outraged or violated by the authorities set up by the law itself.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that the decision contained in Annexure `Z-5' is declared void, illegal and without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Since the petitioner is admittedly1 stands No, 1 on the merits list she is entitled to be admitted to the Bolan Medical College in place of respondent No,
3. We however, do not make any order as to costs, ' At the close of the arguments on 28th June, 1983 we had passed a short order accepting the petition and had directed the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner in place of respondent No, 3 and the above are the reasons for our order. 1968 P Cr. J 229