' MUFTAKHIRUDDIN, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Lasbela, dated 24th September, 1983 (Annexure C to the petition) whereby the local certificate, dated 2nd June, 1982 earlier issued to the petitioner has been revoked, in consequence whereof the petitioner could not obtain admission in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta in the academic session of 1983 against one of the reserved seats for Lasbella District.
2. The petitioner had applied for admission to the Bolan Medical College for the academic Session 1983 against one of the reserved seats for Lasbela District and had appended the local certificate issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Lasbela on 2nd June, 1982, and has also stated that he has studied in Karachi, wherefrom he had passed his Matriculation in the year 1980 and the F. Sc.
(Medical) examination in the year 1982. The application was received by the authorities but before the Selection could be finalized by the Selection Committee for which 27th September, 1983 was fixed the local certificate was ea. Celled by the Deputy Commissioner as a consequence whereof, the petitioner did not present himself for interview before the Selection Committee. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he was a local and fulfilled all the conditions for the grant of local certificate and the revocation of the local certificate was done at the instance of some interested persons which according to the petitioner was mala fide act and the Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Lasbella had no authority to cancel the earlier certificate. It has been prayed, therefore, that the subsequent order as contained in Annexure "C" may be declared as illegal and without lawful authority and consequently be set aside and the Selection Committee be directed to the interview the petitioner and to examine the entitlement of the petitioner against one of the reserved seats allocated to the Lasbela District.
3. This petition was filed in this Court on 1st November, 1983. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No, 3 was sworn by the Principal, Bolan Medical College who is the Secretary of the Selection Committee on 13th November, 1983 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had absented himself from the interview fixed on 27th September, 1983. The Deputy Commissioner furnished the parawise comments to the petition on 24th November, 1983 which were filed in the High Court on 26th November, 1983. A copy of the same was received by the counsel for the petitioner the same day and on 27th November, 1983 the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for short adjournment to study the comments filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lasbela but no affidavit in reply was filed and the matter was argued before us on 28th and 29th November, 1983.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions
(1) that the Deputy Commissioner does not possess any powers of review and the local certificate issued on 2nd June, 1982 could not be cancelled by the successor Deputy Commissioner ;
(2) that the Deputy Commissioner did not issue any show-cause notice to the petitioner ;
(3) that the grounds which prevailed before the Deputy Commissioner for the cancellation/revocation of the earlier local certificate were not available in law.
5. The contention that the local certificate once issued cannot be cancelled subsequently has been considered by us earlier in numerous petitions. In C. P. No, 299 of 1982 Abdul Qadir and another v.
Syed Shah Muhammad and others my learned brother Abdul Qadeer Chaudhary, J in the judgment to which I was also a party has expressed in these words :- "The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Deputy Commissioner has no lawful authority to cancel the local certificate of the petitioner. Once a local certificate is granted it cannot be cancelled as such certificate is issued under the instructions of the Agent to the Governor-General, Baluchistan. No such instructions have been produced. There are no statutory provisions for grant of local certificate and such certificates are issued by the Deputy Commissioner in their administrative capacity. Certificates only shows that the holder of such certificate belongs to that district. As the certificates have not been issued under any statutory provision, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has the authority to cancel the same if on inquiry it is found that the person whose favour a local certificate has been issued is not entitled to the grant of such certificate."
' The purposes for which this certificate is required under the prospectus has also been pointed out by my learned brother Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J in Ashfague's case (1) in these words :- "Permanent Residence Certificate is required in order to show that the applicant is a bona fide Resident of the District from which he claims seat. Such a condition in the prospectus has been made in order to save the interest of those candidates who are bona fide residents of backward Districts."
It has again been pointed out by us in C. P. No, 165 of 1983 Syed Nasrullah Shah v. Government of Baluchistan and others that the Deputy Commissioner some time issue the certificates without proper inquiry at the time of issuance of local or domicile certificates and it is in fact one party procedure but when the applications are invited, the bona fide students of a district whose rights are affected start moving applications against such persons, who according to them are not bona fide residents of that district, and thus the inquiry becomes necessary in presence of the persons affected and different conclusions are sometimes arrived at when A the matter is thoroughly investigated. The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner therefore to consider the matter afresh in order codetermine whether a candidate actually belongs to that District cannot be denied and this in our opinion is the complete answer to the contention of the learned counsel.
6. The Deputy Commissioner in his parawise comment& has stated that local notables/Councillors/Chairman Town Committee Bela have reported that the petitioner (applicant) is not a bona fide local of Bela Town and in order to determine the controversy, the petitioner was summoned for 24th September, 1983 with regard to his local certificate but though he appeared, he could not support his contentions with proof. It has further been contended by the Deputy Commissioner that during, the course of this enquiry one Muhammad Hasil Councilor Town Committee who had earlier recommended the case of the petitioner, this time stated before the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner was not a local of Bela and he too recommended that the local certificate issued in his favour earlier may be cancelled. One Muhammad Amin Ghulab who had earlier favoured the petitioner with his recommendations had also stated before the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioners' father is permanently
(1) 1982 CLC 2386 ' settled at Karachi for the last 17 years and all these objections were put forward before the Deputy Commissioner on 24th September, 1983. The petitioner has not denied that he was not present on 24th September, 1983. This assertion has been made by the Deputy Commissioner in his comments in Paras. 4, 6 and 8 of the parawise comments and these facts have not been controverted by the petitioner, though, as stated earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought time to consider the parawise comment but no counter-affidavit was filed. These assertions thus stand established. In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably urged that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to meet the allegations against him. The documents relied upon by the petitioner and some of them are even placed before us and form part of the record i. e. (1) a certificate issued from the Jam Sahib of Lasbela, (ii) Tehsildar's certificate (Annexure 'M'); and (iii)
Identity Card, do not advance the case of the petitioner. Th certificate signed by Jam Sahib is vague. All that is said in this certificate is that the father of the petitioner had served at Bela State as Ward Servant in Hospital and in the Army of Lasbela for about 12 years but the period of which the services of the father of the petitioner relates is not mentioned. Against that it is contended by the Deputy Commissioner in para. 2 of his parawise comments that the inquiry conducted in the matter show that Malang (father of the petitioner) temporarily shifted to Bela from Panjgur. When Lasbela was a State. At present he is permanently settled in Karachi. The father of the applicant/petitioner has no property in Baluchistan. It is alleged in the petition that the family o the petitioner has settled at Bela since five generations but curiously enough the family has no property or agricultural land as pointed out by the patwari. All that has been established is that the elder brother of the petitioner is doing business at Bela, but the fact remains that the father of the petitioner through whom the petitioner could claim has not been living at Bela for the last 17 years, he also does not belong to an indigineous tribe inhabiting Bela District. The Tehsildar's certificate (Annexure 'M') that the petitioner was born on 6th May, 1964 is not based on his personal knowledge or local enquiry. The School provisional certificate referred in the certificate contains the entry made by the petitioner's father in his own favour. The question No, 11 of the proforma used at the time of the application made for the grant of local certificate also does not specify and properly answer the question. The question No, 11 and its reply reads as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' This reply definitely does not properly answer the question and trans-counter to the established facts that the father of the petitioner has been living at aarachi for the last 17 years, and which fact cannot be possibly denied as the petitioner himself has been studying there and had all through received his education at Karachi. The identity card etc. Are definitely procured in the year 1983 when the application for admission was to be filed. These documents, therefore, do not establish that the petitioner or in his father are permanent residents of Bela. Another fact pointed out by the learned Deputy Commissioner is that the purposes for which the local certificate was required at that time was to obtain service and this is borne out from the Annexure 'V itself. The conclusions of the learned Deputy Commissioner, therefore, that the certificate was obtained earlier for a different purpose but later when it was utilized for a different purpose i. e. For admission in the Bolan Medical College, it was objected to by the genuine candidates/students belonging to the Bela District and thus the facts came to light that he does actually belong to the district.The circumstances of the case and the evidence considered by the Deputy Commissioner does furnish a jurisdiction for the finding of c fact which has arrived at. The factual controversy, therefore, stands resolved by the Deputy Commissioner and it is not possibly in our constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with it.
7. It has been alleged in para. 13 of the petition that persons namely Ali Muhammad and Anwar Shah are interested in a rival candidate for admission to the College. (Muhammad Ismail) and they have been instrumental in cancellation of the local certificate issued earlier to the petitioner and on all that allegation the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner Bela were conducted mala fide. The persons mentioned above are not before us as they are not party in the petition and we would not be justified in condemning them unheard. The Deputy Commissioner has denied the suggestions/allegations contained in para. 13 of the petition. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Sal Muhammad v. West Pakistan Province and another (1) that "the correct attitude in estimating the actions of Government is indeed that they must be regarded as having been taken bona fide until and unless the contrary is established."
The mere allegations of the petitioner are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of the bona fides of the Deputy Commissioner, especially when it is maintained by the Deputy Commissioner in his parawise comments that all the persons who had testified against the petitioner and his father were present on 24th September, 1983 and were confronted with the petitioner. The evidence produced before the. Deputy Commissioner has been duly considered, appeared and assessed and even if another view is possible of the evidence this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction would not be a competent to interfere. As has been pointed out by this Bench in S. P. No, 299 of 1983 Abdul Qadir's case referred earlier that interference in writ jurisdiction would be made only in such cases when only one view as possible. It is not the function of this Court to evaluate the evidence. A Tribunal having jurisdiction may decide it either way. There is thus no jurisdictional defect in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner nor it is case of no evidence.
8. The learned Advocate-General has drawn our attention to the fact contained in the reply of the respondent No, 1 that the petitioner did not appear before the Selection Committee at the time of interview and as such no direction to the Selection Committee as prayed for can be issued by this Court and has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. P. S. L. A. No, Q-1 and Q-5 of 1982 wherein similar contention was considered and it was held :- "That a person who absents himself from the interview before the Selection Committee disentitles him to the admission."
9. There is yet another reason for our non-interference in the matter and it is that selection of students for admission to Bolan Medical.
(1) PLD 1958 $ C (Pak.) 181 ' College, Quetta has been finalized and the students selected have acquire valuable right which cannot be denied to them because they are not before us and no order affecting their right can be passed in their absence and without hearing them. The petition for that reason has become infructuous. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly but with no order as to costs.