' MUFTAKHIRUDDIN, J.-The petitioner Riaz Saleem son of Ghulam Hussain by this petition has challenged the decision of the Selection Committee set up for the selection of the students for admission in the Bolan Medical College for the academic year 1982-83 whereby the petitioner was not considered for selection for a seat reserved for the Sibi District and also challenged the selection of respondent No, 3 Miss Yasmeen Luni and has prayed that the decision of the. Selection Committee contained in Annexure 'IA' be declared as unlawful, unenforceable and instead of respondent No, 3 (Miss Yasmeen Luni) the petitioner be selected, against a seat allotted to the Sibi District.
2. The facts as disclosed from the petition are that the petitioner is second son of one Ghulam Hussain a Railway employee serving as Station Master since the year 1950. The place of postings of the father of the petitioner was mentioned in Annexure 'A' to this petition. According to the averments contained in the petition, four seats are allocated to Sibi District and against one of the seats the petitioner had laid a claim being shown at No, 1 of the merits list prepared on the basis of the applications received from the candidates of the District. Besides the petitioner (1) Javed Iqbal son of Iqbal Ali Shah, (I) Muhammad Gul son of Haji Adam Khan, (3) Miss Afifa Ghazi daughter of Ghazi Muhammad Qasim, (4) Miss Tanveer Akhtar daughter of Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim and (5)
Miss Yasmeen Luni daughter of A. Aziz Luni have been placed at Nos. 2 to 6 in the tentative merits list prepared for the selection of the students to admission of M.B., B.S. During the academic year 1982-83 and this list appears at page 26 of the petition. Three seats out of four were reserved for open general merits while the 4th seat for girl candidates of the District. The petitioner claimed the seat as according to him he belongs to Sibi District for which his residence certificate was issued by the District Magistrate, Sibi on 11th April, 1981 (Annexure H). The Selection Committee did not accept the claim of the petitioner for the reasons that he had passed the Matriculation and F. Sc.
Examinations from Sahiwal (Multan Board) for which he has not given any convincing and cogent reasons and it was held by the Committee unanimously that the certificate issued to the father of the petitioner was acquired with mala fide intention of securing a seat in the professional institutions and the purchase of a plot of land in 1980 by the father of the petitioner whereupon no house was constructed so far amounted to manipulation.
3. Mr. Muhammad Zafar, Advocate the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 Miss Yasmeen Luni made a statement before us that respondent No, 3 was selected against the girl seat reserved for the District which fact was also supported by the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Selection Committee. This stand was taken before this Court on 4th May, 1983 and on that basis it was contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief against respondent No,
3. The case was heard on 25th May, 1983 when it was ordered that the parties may file further documents if they so desire. Mr. Basharatullah, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner though had sought time to consider the objection but did not make any application for impleading the students who were selected against the three seats reserved for open general merits and persisted that the petition could be maintainable in spite of that objection. Admittedly the respondent No, 3 has nothing to do with the claim of the petitioner as she was not selected against the general seats and the students who were selected against the three general seats have not been impleaded despite knowledge on the part of the petitioner. The rights of the students mentioned above who were selected would be effected by the result of this petition and as such are the necessary party and no effective writ in favour A of the petitioner could be issued unless the necessary parties are impleaded in the petition. The Court has not to see the equities in favour of one party but also in favour of the other party. In Muhammad Ibrahim v. Chief Settlement Commissioner Lahore their Lordships have held that in a writ petition where a valuable right had come to vest in a person whom petitioner failed to impleaded despite knowledge no effective writ can be issued. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Masood-ul-Hassan's case have also expressed grave concern at the failure of the petitioner there to make persons who would be effected by the result of the writ petition parties therein and it was said that this fact alone could be a good ground for refusing the writ asked for. To the same strain is the judgment of the Dacca High Court reported in Abdul Fateh v. Province of East Pakistan.
4. Besides thecounsels for the respondents have laid great emphasis on the conduct of the petitioner's father in procuring documents and have contended that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and is thus not entitled to any relief and in that connection have drawn the attention of the Court to various documents tendered by the petitioner himself. From those documents it is found that the petitioner's father had obtained a domicile certificate from District Kachhi which was issued on 31st May, 1976 by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Kachhi and from the certificate issued by the Divisional Superintendent Railways, Quetta and relied by the petitioner (Annexure A to the Petition) showing the postings of the father of the petitioner, it is established beyond any doubt that father of the petitioner was at Muslim Bagh with effect from 1st June, 1975 to 8th September, 1979. The petitioner and his father do not claim to belong to any indigenous tribe of Kachhi nor had any house where the family of the petitioner's father could reside. This domicile certificate was cancelled on 5th April, 1979 by the District Magistrate, Kachhi as according to him the possessor of the certificate has moved down altogether from that place but in spite of this finding the petitioner's father persisted in his efforts to retain that certificate and made an application on 19th February, 1981 for its restoration. 'This request was turned down and1 2 3 reply as contained in letter No, 2829, dated 29th March, 1981 (Annexure G/21 was issued wherein it was maintained that the domicile certificate was cancelled after full enquiry and investigation.
Strangely enough within two weeks thereafter the father of the petitioner was successful in getting a certificate from District Magistrate, Sibi on 11th April, 1981 and on the strength of that domicile certificate the permanent residence certificate dated 3rd April, 1982 (Annexure H/1) was obtained from the District Magistrate, Sibi which reads as follows :- "Permanent Residence Certtficate.----In view of Domicile Certificate bearing No, 107/1/61-Act, dated 11th April, 1981 issued from this office, this is to certify that Mr. Riaz Saleem son of Ch. Ghulam Hussain whose name stands at S. No, 2 of the said Domicile Certificate is a permanent residence of Sibi."and on these basis the petitioner claims to belong to District Sibi and considered himself entitled to a seat from Sibi District. In order to ascertain ourselves the truth or otherwise of the facts alleged we had to examine the record pertaining to the domicile certificates issued from Kachhi District as well as Sibi. In the application made to District Magistrate, Kachhi it has been affirmed that Ghulam Hussain son of Ch. Umar Din (father of the petitioner) was formerly the resident of Chak No, 45/5-L, District Sahiwal and had arrived in Baluchistan Tehsil Machh, District Kachhi on 28th March, 1950. This information on the face of it was not only misleading but incorrect as the petitioner's father was never posted at Machh on 28th March, 1950. His posting at Abe-Gum was only for a very short period with effect from 8th June, 1973 to 31st May, 1975 only. The assertion of Ghulam Hussain that he had permanently settled at Machh and for which some certificates from the residents of Mach were procured by him and submitted alongwith the application were not found believable and a definite finding of fact was recorded by the District Magistrate, Kachhi that he had moved down to altogether which finding was unassailable as Ghulam Hussain being a Railway Servant could not reside even at Abegum (The place of posting after 31st May, 1975). Before the authorities at Sibi it was categorically affirmed that "My application for the grant of domicile certificate has not been rejected by the District Magistrate op any previous occasion and further declared" I am resident continuously in Baluchistan Sibi District w. e. f. 28th March, 1950" having arrived in District Sibi on 28th March, 1950 which fact was false to his own knowledge on the basis of the document (Annexure A). The place to which the petitioner and his father belonged has come out from the declaration in the application made by his father that he belongs to Sahiwal and resides in Chak No, 45/5-L, District Sahiwal. This fact is also borne out from the entries made in the Identity Card issued to him by District Registrar, Sahiwal and bear No, 333-26-000375 issued to him vide No, SW-31/31-11-73 dated November 30, 1973. (This certificate is on record of the file of the District Magistrate, Sibi). The petitioner's father while persuing his application for the grant of a certificate from District Sibi at the same time was making the Kachhi District authorities believe that he was residing within Kachhi District and the application for the grant of certificate from Sibi District did not disclose that he was previously issued a certificate from Kachhi District which was cancelled. Thus he never approached the authorities nor this Court with clean hands. The superior Courts have repeatedly held that a party seeking relief under the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court must come to Court with clean hands. Otherwise the party may disentitle itself to any relief on that ground alone.
5. If the assertion of the petitioner's father that he was living in Pakistan since birth there could be no occasion to make any application under Pakistan Citizenship Act and Rules as no such certificate was necessary. The domicile certificates are issued under the provisions of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder in 1952 in token of recognition of his status as citizen of Pakistan by virtue of migration to Pakistan from territories now forming part of India was envisaged by section 6 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The powers to issue such certificates vest primarily in the Central Government by virtue of said Act but for the facility of the applicants these powers have been delegated to various District Magistrates in Pakistan and the Provincial Governments who received applications from the residents of their Districts and issue Domicile Certificates after making necessary verification about their place of residence and period of stay in the District. The certificate as required under the prospectus of Bolan Medical College was a certificate of Residence. No certificate under the Citizenship Act was therefore necessary in case of petitioner as he was in Pakistan since birth. The certificate obtained by the father of the petitioner was only to obtain a seat in the Medical College and not that he had permanently settled or had any intention to live permanently. The information supplied in that behalf as has been demonstrated above was false to his knoweldge and belied by the documents he himself produced, thus from the record produced and the information supplied by the father of the petitioner to the authorities while making application for the grant of domicile certificates no finding of fact is possible in favour of the father of the petitioner as the information supplied was found incorrect to the knowledge of the petitioner's father.
6.. Mr. Basharatullah the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the entry in the service book of the petitioner's father wherein it has been shown that he is a permanent resident of Sibi, naturally. The petitioner's father entered into service in 1950 but as would appear from Annexure 'A' he was posted to Sibi Railway Station only in the year 1979 and before that petitioner's father did not claim to have any property at Sibi where he could have housed his dependents. The entry in the service book could not therefore be validly made in the year 1950. In his application made before the Deputy Commissioner, Kachhi the father of the petitioner disclosed that he was resident of Sahiwal which fact is further established from the National Identity Card submitted at the time of making the application to the District Magistrate, Sibi as shown above. The petitioner's father therefore, was blowing hot and cool in the same breath and he never disclosed the real facts to the authorities to whom he approach-ea for the issuance of this certificate. If the permanent residence as entered in the service book was correct the petitioner would have studied at Sibi where educational facility upto Degree College is available. The petitioner has shown certain reasons for his not studying at Sibi or any where in Baluchistan but those reasons have not been accepted by the Selection Committee. From the narration of facts as detailed above, this finding cannot be held to be fanciful. This Court in Constitutional Petition No, 47 of 1983 Muhammad Shamsul Qamar v. Selection Committee has held that the Selection Committee is competent on the basis of material and enquiry to decide as to whether the candidate actually belong to that District to which he has produced the local/domicile certificate. This Court in C. P. No, 112 of 1981 (Miss Farah Deba's case) has again held C rule 32 of the Prospectus empowers the Selection Committee to determin as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the District of which he/sh has produced a domicile certificate. According to rule 32 only production of domicile certificate does not conclusively determine the eligibility of candidate. Despite submission of a domicile certificate it is within the competence of the Committee to determine the status of the candidate on the basis of the documents submitted alongwith the application or after further enquiry. In the case of Miss Farah Deba there was a domicile certificate of Quetta which was later got cancelled and one from Machh was obtained. The High Court held that the petitioner had not come with clean hands. The Selection Committee has exercised its powers in accordance with paragraph 32 of the prospectus and the material on record does support the finding of the Committee as such findings of the Committee are neither perverse nor arbitrary. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore that the Selection Committee has not exercised his authority in accordance with law has no force. The counsel has also made an attempt to substantiate his contention that the petitioner belongs to Sibi District has produced certificate to the effect that he has now constructed a house over a plot in Sibi but that submission too cannot be made basis because the possession of property is not the only criterion for determining the entitlement of a person to get a seat from the District. C. P. No, 47 of 3983 Muhammad Shamsul Qamar v. Selection'
Committee may be referred. In the instant case the Selection Committee on the basis of the available material has given finding of fact which is supported by the documents produced before us. We have ourselves considered the material placed on record by the parties and we are convinced that the conduct of the petitioner's father in obtaining a certificate of domicile or residence from the very start has rather been dubious and shady. To be far-sighted the matter of admission for his children in the professional college is no disqualification to be disparaged or looked down F upon but unscrupulously extracting unlawful gain by procuring illegal orders is certainly an indefensible and unenviable conduct to be frowned upon. In these circumstances we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to interfere in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
' The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. PLD 1966 Lah. 396 PLD 1963 SC 203 PLD 1966