' MUFTAKHIRUDDIN, J.-The petitioners in Constitutional Petitions Nos. 192 of 1982, 219 of 1982, 270 of 1982, and 311 of 1982 have challenged the orders of the Selection Committee appointed by the Government of Baluchistan for selection of the candidates to the Engineering Colleges of Pakistan reserved for the students from Baluchistan, for the academic session 1982 and have challenged the orders refusing to grant them admission and the admission granted to respondent Tahir Mehmood son of Ghulam Hyder.
' As these petitions arise out of the same set of facts and raised common question of law they were heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment 3(a). Before stating the facts in each case it would be convenient to . Mention some of the salient features of the policy announced in this behalf by the Government of Baluchistan and published in the Gazette Notification on 3-3-198/ 79 seats were reserved for the students of Baluchistan in the Engineering College/Universities in Punjab, Sind and N.-W. F. P., out of which two seats were allocated for the students belonging to the rural area of Quetta. The areas falling within the limits of Quetta Municipal Corporation and Quetta Cantonment are treated as Urbran Area and the remaining part of the District as Rural Area Only local/domicile residents of Quetta District were eligible for admission and their applications were to be accompanied by a permanent residence certificate from the District Magistrate, Quetta. Selection of students was to be made on merits through a Selection Committee whose composition was also notified which was to scrutinize and interview the candidates. The other relevant features of the policy are reproduced below :- "(7) Only the candidates who are locals of Baluchistan or in possession of valid Domicile Certificates will be eligible for admission against the above seats reserved in various Engineering Colleges/ Universities.
(8) The candidates seeking admission shall have to produce before the Selection Committee a local Certificate or a valid Domicile Certificate, as the case may be, issued by the District Magistrate of the respective District.
(8-A) Physical presence of the candidate is compulsory at the time of interview.
(9) The minimum qualification for a candidate for admission to 1st year Engineering Class is Intermediate Science (Pre-Engineering) of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Quetta or any other equivalent examination of any recognized Board or University.
(10) The candidate must have passed the Marticulation and Intermediate Science examination from Baluchistan unless the candidate could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reasons for not studying in Baluchistan and claiming exemption from the operation of this condition.
(11) A candidate found in possession of two or more local/Domicile Certificates issued by the District Magistrates of different Districts, at the time of interview, shall not be considered for admission against the seats of any of the Districts of which he/she possesses local Domicile Certificates. His/Her application shall be rejected by the Selection Committee.
(12) . . . .
(13) . . . . .
(14) All applications must be accompanied by photostat copies or true copies of the following documents duly attested by an officer of Grade 16 or above :-
(1) F. Sc. (Engineering group) Certificate.
(2) F. Sc. (Engineering group) Detailed Marks Certificate.
(3) Matriculation Certificate.
(4) Local/Domicile Certificate from the District Magistrate.
(5) Permanent Residence Certificate from the District Magistrate. (6), Character Certificate from the Principal of the College last attended.
(7) Certificate of N. C. C. Training of 2 years duration.
(8) Four copies of latest passport size photograph.
(9) An affidavit, in the non-Judicial Paper duly attested by the First Class Magistrate, stating that the candidate or his/her parent/Guardian is in possession of only one Local/Domicile Certificate."
3(b).-On 31-5-1982 to 2-6-1982 the candidates were interviewed in the Committee Room of the Civil Secretariat Baluchistan, Quetta. On scrutiny of the application it was found that 10 candidates had made applications against two seats of Quetta District (Rural) and the merits position of the candidates was as follows :-
(1) Tahir Mahmood son of Ghulam Hyder.
(2) Ehsanullah son of Ubaidullah.
(3) Nasibullah son of Muhammad Yousaf.
(4) Ali Ahmed son of Dur Muhammad.
(5) Nadir Khan son of Kamal Khan.
3(c).-Since the marks obtained by Tahir Mehmood respondent (in all these petitions) and Ehsanullah were higher than the others they were-selected and the petitioners Nasibullah, Ali Ahmed and Nadir Khan were passed over, against which decision they have moved these petitions in this Court.
4. The petitioner (in Constitutional Petition No, 192 of 1982) Nasibullah has challenged the selection of Tahir Mahmood respondent No, 2 basing the claim on the assertions contained in the application (Annexure T to the petition) addressed to the Selection Committee for Engineering seats Quetta (Rural) to the effect :-
(I) That he (Tahir Mehmood) had produced a false certificate of Killa Kasi but he is not residing in it.
(2) That first of all he was residing at Pir Muhammad Road, Nichari, Quetta.
(3) That his parents shifted to Ghilzai Road, Quetta and still getting ration from Ward No, 132.
(4) That at present he is residing in Cantonment area.
(5) That he has already taken admission in Physics Department of Baluchistan University, Quetta.
(6) That he has passed his F. Sc. Examination from Hyderabad Board.
5. All the candidates of District Quetta (Rural) were jointly summoned by the Committee and they were asked to state if they have objections against any of the candidates. Objections were raised against the candidates, that is, Tahir Mehmood son of Ghulam Hyder and Ali Ahmed son of Dur Muhammad. Accordingly it was decided by the Committee to refer their cases to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta for reverification. The Deputy Commissioner, Quetta made a report which is (Annexure 'A' to the comments) furnished by the respondent No, 1 and is at page 195 of the petition which is reproduced below :- ' No, 2337-40 Confidential ' Office Of the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta (Accounts Branch)
Dated Quetta, the 7th June, 1982.
' The Chairman, Public Service Commission and Chairman, Engingeering Selection Committee, Quetta.
Subject : Objections Verifications of Domicile and Permanent Certificate of District Quetta.
' Reference meeting dated 31st May, 1982 at 3-00 p. m. And your letter No, PSC/82 1906-9 dated 1st June, 1982.
2. Case of Tahir Mahmood son of Ghulam Haider, Kasi.
' The matter was investigated, complainants and the candidate were also heard and record perused. From the investigation it has been reveakd that Mr. Tahir Mahmood 'son of Ghulam Haider Kasi originally belongs to Killa Kasi. The .Father of the candidate owns house property in Khasra No, 6298 of Killa Kasi and was residing there prior to 1970. At present he is residing on Shara-e-Ghalib Cantt: ' Area where he has constructed a house. Moreover another brother of the candidate is already studying in B. M. C. Who was given admission from Killa Kasi. The candidate should be considered for admission from Killa Kasi on merit.
(Sd.)..................
Deputy Commissioner, Quetta.
' On the basis of this report of the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta the candidature of Tahir Mahmood son of Ghulam Hyder, respondent was formally confirmed in the subsequent meeting on 3-7-1982 and as he has secured more marks than the petitioners his name was included in the summary showing the names of the selectees submitted to the Government of Baluchistan.
6. The petitioner Nasibullah (in C. P. No, 192 of 1982) filed this petition on 3-8-1982 and based objections as contained in Annexure T already reproduced. Later on 17-8-1982 he sought permission of the Court to make amendment of the petition in order to implead the Deputy Commissioner. District Magistrate, Quetta as respondent No, 3 by adding paras. 10 to 11 in the petition and on the basis of the amended petition the prayer is made that :--
(a) a declaration be made to the effect that respondent No, 2 (Tahir Mehmood son of Ghulam Hyder) is not bona fide and permanent resident of Quetta District rural area and thus hid no locus standi to apply for admission in the Engineering College for the academic session 1982 from the said rural area.
(b) that the selection of respondent No, 2 who is not a bona fide and Permanent resident of Killa Kasi or any rural area and being resident of urban area of Quetta District was not entitled to apply or to selection from the rural area of Quetta District. Thus, his selection by the Selection Committee respondent No, 1 is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and void and thus without jurisdiction and lawful authority and liable to be set aside.
(c) that as Kansi Kila is a part of Quetta Municipality now Quetta Municipal Corporation, the certificates issued to respondent No, 2 by respondent No, 3 (District Magistrate, Quetta) describing Kansi Kila as rural area is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of law and being mala fide the local and permanent residence certificates of respondent No, 3 as resident of rural area of Quetta District be cancelled and it be further declared that Kansi Kila being part of Quetta Municipal Corporation is an urban area and not rural area. Therefore, the certificates describing the same rural area are of no legal effect and be cancelled as such :
(d) it be further declared that as the petitioner is a bona fide and permanent resident and local of Kuchlak, he is entitled to selection admission in the Engineering College from Quetta district rural area in the academic session 1982 and the respondent No, 1 (Selection Committee) be directed to select and grant admission to the petitioner in the Engineering College for the academic session 1982 on one of he two seats of Quetta district rural area.
7. The parawise comments have been furnished on behalf of respondent No, 1 and the counter- affidavit by the respondent No 2.
(a) In the comments furnished on behalf of the selection it has been asserted that the application submitted by Nasibullah were referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta for a detailed report which having been received contained the facts that :-
(1) That Tahir Mehmood son of Ghulam Hyder belongs to Killa Kasi (Rural area), his father owns a house at Killa Kansi and that another brother of the candidate is already studying in Bolan Medical College, Quetta who was given admission from Kila Kansi and, therefore, this candidate should also be given admission from Kila Kasi." and since Tahir Mehmood had been verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta as genuine and bona fide resident of Kila Kansi which falls in rural area he was selected, as he had secured more marks than the petitioners (the fact that respondent Tahir Mehmood had secured more marks than the petitioners stands unrebuted).
(b) As regards the passing of Matriculation examination by the respondent Tahir Mehmood from St.
Francis Grammer School, Quetta and his F. Sc. From Hyderabad *Board he satisfied the Selection Committee. The explanation offered by respondent No, 2 to the Selection Committee was accepted. It was also explained in the comments that taking of admission in the B. Sc. In the University by this respondent did not offend any rule of the admission policy as it was only the safe-guard for loss of one academic year if he was rejected for admission in the Engineering College.
8. The counter-affidavit filed by respondent No, 2 raised preliminary objections against the maintainability of the petition and asserted the fact that he i,e, Tahir Mehmood was a bona fide resident of Kila Kansi and the permanent certificate issued by District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner was properly issued on the basis of the material placed before him and in presence of the objectors (all the petitioners). It was also contended that the petitioner Nasibullah was a local of Pishin and had obtained a local certificate from that District and he enjoyed benefits therefrom i,e, scholarships, the subsequent certificate obtained by him for the Quetta District Rural area was unjustified. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the seat from the Quetta District (Rural Area).
9. The petitioner Nadir Khan (in C. P. No, 219 of 1982) filed this petition on 29-8-1982 and has challenged the selection of Tahir Mehmood and has impleaded Nasibullah (the petitioner in C. P.
No, 192 of 1982) as respondent. The objections against the selection of Tahir Mehmood are almost on the same lines which were taken by Nasibullah in his petition against Tahir Mehmood. An application No, 691/82 was made on 3-10-1982 through which petition was sought to be amended as was done by Nasibullah Petitioner in C. P. No, 192 of 1982. The preference over Nasibullah was claimed on the averments that Nasibullah is not resident of Quetta rural area and in fact be is resident of Pishin from which district he had obtained a local certificate and during the subsistence of that certificate had obtained another certificate from Quetta on 12-11-1980 and that Nasibullah has been in receipt of scholarship from Pishin. In support of that assertion the application made by Nasibullah for admission to the Degree College wherein he has shown him to be the resident of Pishin District was mentioned.
10. In his counter-affidavit Nasibullah respondent had taken the stand that the alternate remedy being available to the petitioner Nadir Khan has not been availed as such he is not entitled to the relief in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, according to Nasibullah the petition contained disputed facts and that no objection was raised by Nadir Khan before the Selection Committee.
11. In C. P. No, 270 of 1982 filed by Ali Ahmad on 30-10-1982 the selection of Tahir Mehmood was objected to practically on the same lines as was done by Nasibullah and Nadir Khan. The respondent Nadir Khan was impleaded as respondent because according to the petitioner Ali Ahmed had secured more marks than Nadir Khan.
12. The next in point of time is yet another petition filed by Nadir Khan which was registered as C. P.
No, 311 of 1982. In this petition besides the Selection Committee and the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, Ali Ahmad (Petitioner in C. P. No, 270 of 1982) is impleaded as respondent No, 3 and it is alleged that Ali Ahmad is Aot resident of rural area but is living at Gillani Road, Quetta and it has been prayed that the local certificates issued to the father of Ali Ahmad on the basis cf which the application of Ali Ahmad was considered by the Selection Committee be cancelled and the order of the Selection Committee be declared without lawful authority. It is interesting to note that the respondent Ali Ahmad in his reply to this petition of Nadir Khan has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition and maintained that the selection Committee had jurisdiction to base its decision on the finding of the Deputy Commissioner and the High Court would not sit in appeal against this finding of fact.
13. From the narration of facts it is found that all these petitioners are aggrieved of the recommendations of the Selection Committee which has I been approved by the Government of Baluchistan whereby Tahir Mehmood has been selected and the main ground of attack against Tahir Mehmood before the Committee was that Tahir Mehmood is not a resident of Kila Kansi. As has been narrated above on the objections made by the contestants to the seats matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta who has not only enquired into the matter, has taken into consideration the documents produced before him by the respective candidates, had arrived at a finding of fact that the father of respondent Tahir Mehmood has a residential house in Kila Kansi and one of the brothers of Tahir Mehmood was even for that very consideration admitted to the medical college from the rural area of Kila Kansi. This finding of fact has been approved by the Selection Committee. It has been held in Razia Iqbal's case (1) that whether a candidate is al bona fide resident of rural or urban area is a question of pure fact. The evaluation of merits and genuineness of respective resident certificates produced by the candidates is the jurisdiction of Selection Committee which is competent to accept one or the other on the material placed before it and the High Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction cannot adjudicate on a controversial question of fact. The documents placed by the petitioner and the respondent Tahir Mehmood were duly considered and were suificient to satisfy the Selection Committee about the permanent resident of th respondent Tahir Mehmood, and under Rules and the policy it is the selection committee which could from an opinion on the basis of the documents or on any other enquiry through the District Magistrate and this satisfaction of the committee is borne out by the comments furnished on behalf of the respondent No, 1.
14. The objection against the respondent Tahir Mehmood for his having studied outside Baluchistan has been considered by the committee and the {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1976 Quetta 70 {{FOOT NOTE}} explanation offered by Tahir Mehmood has been found satisfactory and thus there is no ground for our interference in this limited jurisdiction.
15. About the contention/objection raised in the amended petition of Nasibullah and Nadir Khan that Kila Kansi is not a part of rural area of Quetta District, suffice it to say that this objection was not taken by any of the petitioners before the selection committee and the objection against the selection of Tahir Mehmood as contained in the application made be Nasibullah (Annexure I') to the petition No, 192 of 1982) was that Tahir Mehmood was not a resident of Kila Kansi. This objection cannot be allowed to be takan and the petitioners cannot be allowed to put up a case which was not before the selection committee. We are fortified in our view by the Rules laid down in C. P. No, 171 of 1981 (Miss Sajida Hissani's case (1). Mr. Khalid Malik the learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nasibullah has urged before us that the committee has failed to take notice of the fact which was their duty to determine and thus the committee has failed to exercise jurisdiction. In support of that submission he has referred to certain documents placed on record by him and one of such documents is a site plan of a ward of the municipal committee wherein certain pillars are shown to be the boundary of the respective wards. The facts alleged by the petitioner about the location of Kila Kansi is attempted to be proved by the documents (Annexures 'G' and 'M' filed in Petition No, 219 of 1982). The pillors shown in the documents can only be established by the oral evidence which is necessary for the existence of those pillars. As against this respondents have relied on the certificate of the Administrator of the Quetta Municipality Quetta to the effect that Kila Kansi is not included so far in the municipal limits of Quetta Town. Certain notifications issued by the West Pakistan Government in the year 1936 that Kila Kasi was not included in the municipal limits of Quetta municipality have also been relied upon by and on behalf of the selection committee and the respondent Tahir Mehmood. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that it is the Government which has the authority to say as to which place is in the rural area or urban area, and the assertion of the petitioners about the status of Kila Kansi has been controverted. In these circumstances. We are confronted with a disputed question of fact which needs to be determined not only on the material placed before us but also on oral evidence.
The Province of Baluchistan is also not impleaded in the petition. We are thus deprived of the proper material which is not only relevant but is necessary for the determination of the questions involved. We think that this is not appropriate case which should be decided in a summary procedure in this writ petition. We, therefore, leave the matter open to be considered at some other appropriat time. The view that we have taken is supported by a Division Bench Judgment of Dacca High Court reported in Abdul Rehman Khan and Othersl v. D. C. Jasoor and others (2).
16. The learned Advocate-General and the counsel for the respondent Tahir Mehmood has urged before us that these petitions have become infructuous as the academic session in which the petitioners claim admission is coming to a close and the respondent No, 2 who has spent time and money should not be disturbed at the close of the year and Safia Hamid's case (3) was relied upon.
There is another aspect of the matter that the institution where the respondent No, 2 has been admitted is not a party to the petitions {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1981 SC 571 (2) PLD 1966 Dacca 307 (3) PLD 1980 SC 28 {{FOOT NOTE}} and we do not know if the Prospectus of that College permits the student to be admitted at a belated stage and for this reason we had declined such a relief in C. P. No, 188 of 1982 (Mir Hassan Shah v. Government of Baluchistan and others).
7. Since we have held that the findings of facts arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Quetta about the residence of respondent Tahir Mehmood and its further acceptance by the selection committee is with jurisdiction and since Tahir Mehmood has admittedly secured more marks than the petitioners his selection was in order and no interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is called for, it is unnecessary to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners against each other.
' For the reasons given above the petitions merit no consideration and are without any substance.
We accordingly dismiss all these petitions. Since the students are involved we order that parties should bear their own costs.