' B.G.N. Kazi, J.--The petitioner who was nominated by the Director, Education Baluchistan, against one of the five seats reserved for Baluchistan Government nominees for admission in Bachelor of Technology (pass) Degree Course in Sind on reciprocal basis and who was allocated for admission to first year class in Government College of Technology, Hyderabad, by the Director, Technical Education Sind, Karachi, has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that being senior on the merit list of candidates nominated by the Director of Education Baluchistan, he should have been given admission in the Government College of Technology S.I.T.E., Karachi and not the Government College of Technology, Hyderabad.
' The facts leading to the filing of this petition are as under:-
1. There are five seats reserved on reciprocal basis for Baluchistan Government nominees in the Government Colleges of Technology in the Province of Sind. There are three Government Colleges of Technology one each at Karachi, Hyderabad and Khairpur, in which there are two degree courses open for admission of candidates having diploma of Associate Engineer in Civil Technology which consists of course of two years duration for fresh diploma holders and of one year duration for experience diploma holders having a minimum of two years industrial experience; and there is also Bachelor of Technology (Honours) Course which is of two years duration and is open for those who hold Bachelor of Technology (pass) Degree. In the instant case the petitioner seeks admission in the Government College of Technology, Karachi for Bachelor of Technology (Pass) Course for two years being a fresh diploma holder. It is the case of the respondent No,1 that merely a list of nominees is sent by the Director Education (Colleges)
Baluchistan, Quetta, and there is no rule that a candidate placed higher in the list of nominated candidates is to be admitted in the Karachi College as the five seats are reserved in all institutions in the Province of Sind and it is the discretion of the authorities concerned to place any candidate in any institution situated in the Province on consideration of public interest and administration of the institution. All the three colleges have prescribed number of seats for each course in each year and usually wherever there is vacancy a nominated candidate is ordered to be given admission in that institution.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured a diploma of Associate Engineer in Civil Technology from the Government College of Technology, Karachi in the year 1980 having secured 2175 marks out of 3250 and was nominated on merit by the Director of Education, Quetta on reciprocal basis in the province of Sind for admission in Bachelor of Technology (Pass) Course. He has further raised the plea that according to merit list prepared by the Director of Education Baluchistan and sent" to respondent No,1, he stood second in the list for Civil Bachelor of Technology (Pass) Course and only one Hamid Sana Malik had been placed above him in that list but since Hamid Sana Malik did not join the course and his nomination had been cancelled, he should have been treated as being first on the list. Since he has arrangements for residential accommodation at Karachi', where he has been studying for the last three years and further since the institution at Karachi is considered to be the best. He should have been admitted in the Government College of Technology at Karachi and not sent to Hyderabad. He has taken the plea that respondent No,2, namely, Naeem Shah student of Bachelor of Technology (Pass) Course of the Government College of Technology, Karachi having secured less marks and having been shown in the merit list below him by the Director Education, Baluchistan should not have been admitted in Karachi College in preference to him, and respondent No,2, namely, Bilal Ahmed, who had been nominated for admission in the Province of Sind and who had only secured 2092 marks out of 3050, should not have been admitted in Karachi College.
' It may hereby stated that in the petition as initially drafted and filed only Director, Technical Education Sind was named as respondent and the petitioner was directed by this Court to join other students who were likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed in the case and, therefore, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were shown as such in the amended memo. Of the petition. In the report of the Principal Government College of Technology, Karachi, it has been stated that respondent No,2 is a student of second year first semester of Bachelor of Technology (Pass) Civil and respondent no.3 is a student of first year Civil Technology taking training of 12 months with M.Y.
Corporation Limited (building construction engineers and planners). The respondents Nos.2 and 3 were served with notice of these proceedings and had appeared in Court in person. It may also be mentioned here that since in the parawise comments, respondent No,1 had taken the plea that the merit list showing the number. Of marks obtained and the relative position of the candidates is never sent by the Baluchistan authorities and just the names of nominated candidates are received from time to time, a query was made to Mr. M. Jamil, the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the Director Education Baluchistan, who is the nominating authority has not been shown as a party as the grievance if any of the petitioner is that on merit he should have been listed higher than respondents Nos.2 and 3. The learned counsel, however, emphatically stated that the petitioner has no grievance against the Baluchistan authorities.
3. In article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 under which the instant petition has been filed, it is incumbent that the petition should be of any aggrieved party. Even the number of marks secured at the test can be considered as criterion for judging merit of those persons alone who sit for the same test and not others who might have appeared in some other test held by some other institution. In the absence of information as to whether the respondents Nos.2 and 3 also appeared at the same test and further in the absence of any authentic information about the marks secured by them, it would be premature to consider that just because the petitioner makes an oral assertion that he received more marks, therefore, he should be considered above them in the merit list. There is mention in the memo. No,1/80/BT/2755/T.E., dated 28th February, 1982, addressed by the Director of Education (Colleges) Baluchistan, Quetta that the documents of the five nominated candidates for reserve seats were being sent but in view of the specific assertion by respondent No,1, who is a senior official of Sind Government that the merit list was not sent and the letter mentioned only names of nominated candidates, it cannot be inferred that the documents received included the merit list showing the marks secured by the different candidates. It is for the petitioner to establish prima facie that he is an aggrieved party by proving that at the same examination he had secured more marks than the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and that he was above them in the merit list. His refusal to make the Director Education Baluchistan a party or to institute petition against him has closed all avenues of inquiry regarding the merit list. Further, the fact that respondent No,2, Naeem Shah had joined the second year course would show that he had the requisite qualifications for being admitted in the second year which were higher than those claimed by the petitioner who is seeking admission only in the first year. It is further observed that in the telegram received from the Baluchistan authorities by respondent No,1, it was mentioned that Bilal Ahmed was being nominated in the place of Hamid Sana Malik as their nominee. It is apparent that Bilal Ahmed had been substituted at No,1 in the list of candidates nominated.
5. The three Colleges of Technology at Karachi, Hyderabad and Khairpur have not been given any gradation as superior or inferior institutions and it is doubtful whether the petitioner could be said to have any right of admission in any particular institution. Even if the grading of the colleges had been made, it was for the nominating authority to show the order of merit but since the petitioner has no grievance against that authority, he cannot be considered to have made out a case for interference by this Court which for obvious reasons would affect respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of whom too there are no details about comparative merit.
6. The prospectus of the Government College of Technology, S.I.T.E., Karachi shows that there are 20 seats for first year course in Civil Technology on behalf of respondent No, 1 made it clear that there were more than the aforesaid number of students already attending the course and it would be difficult to create a further seat for the petitioner. In our opinion it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to direct creation of seats and even if the petitioner had made out a good case for interference all that he could have sought was a declaration that he should have been admitted in Bachelor of Technology (Pass) Degree Course in the institution.
In the circumstances stated, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court in the matter of his -4 admission to the Government College of Technology, Karachi and, therefore, the petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.