1. AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, J.--By this Constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the selection committee rejecting her candidature for admission to First Year M.B.B.S. In Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the academic session 1986.
2. The facts in a nutshell, are that the petitioner passed her F.Sc.(Pre-Medical) examination from Board of Intermediate andSecondary Education, Quetta obtaining 698 marks and in addition thereto 20 marks for completing the N . C . C . Training.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that her grandparents migrated from Jullundar (East Punjab) to Pakistan and decided to settle in Faisalabad District of Punjab where they got landed property in lieu of property left by them in India. The petitioner's father passed his B.Sc. In Punjab. He however was employed as Senior English teacher in another Division is 1963. He served at various places in Baluchistan. He decided to settle permanently at Loralai. Keeping that purpose in view, he purchased a piece of land and constructed a house there. On the basis of the same he applied for a domicile certificate from District Loralai and a certificate was issued to the petitioner's fatherin the year 1971 by the then Deputy Commissioner-cum-Political Agent Loralai.
4. The petitioner's father has been serving in different Districts like Loralai, Khuzdar, Noshki and Quetta.
5. So also the petitioner's mother was appointed as Senior English Teacher in Government Girls School Loralai in the year 1979. In September, 1983 she was transferred from Loralai to Quetta. It was further stated by the petitioner that her brother namely Weqar Ahmed after passing his F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) examination was admitted to Bolan Medical College, Quetta in the year 1984 against the reserved quota of District Loralai. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she was born at Noshki during her father's posting there. She had her education at Govt. Girls Middle School Khuzdar from June 1972 to March1979. However, she passed Matriculation examination from Govt. High School Loralai butassed her F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) from Quetta.
6. The petitioner applied for admission against one of the nine seats allocated for District Loralai It is worth to mention here that out of nine seats one seat is reserved for girl candidate from the said District and the remaining seats are on merit basis amongst the boys and girls candidates of the said District. The petitioner's caseof admission was considered but rejected by the selection committee and the said decision has been impugned by this constitutional petition. The main reason for refusing admission to the petitioner was that she is not a permanent resident of District Loralai.
7. We have heard at length the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, the learned Advocate-General Baluchistan and Mr.Iftikhar Muhammad, the learned counsel for the private respondents. We have also perused the rejoinders to the petition filed by the official and private respondents and minutes of the selection committee.
8. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti urged with considerable vehemence that by constructing a house at Loralai the petitioner's father decided to permanently reside at Loralai. It was further submitted by him that merely because of the exigencies of service he has been residing at different places in the province of Baluchistan. Since both the father and mother of the petitioner are in service and at the relevant time posted at Quetta, hence she was constrained to live at Quetta because she could not live alone at Loralai.
9. It was next contended that on the basis of domicile certificate issued to the petitioner's father, her brother namely Weqar Ahmed was allowed admission in Bolan Medical College against one of the reserved seats of District Loralai. Hence on the same analogy and same rights the petitioner should have been Plented by the Selection Committee. He placed reliance on an authority of this Court as reported in PLD 1978 Quetta 17.
10. It was thirdly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the domicile certificate issued to the father of the petitioner is still intact and reasonable, presumption would be that the said certificate was validly issued on the maxim that official acts are presumed to be correct and valid, unless proved otherwise. Reliance was placed on a judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan as reported in PLD 1974 SC 151.
11. Furthermore, it was submitted that the decision of the selection committee is in direct contravention of Article 15 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and amounts to infringement of petitioner's rights as guaranteed to a citizen under Article 15 of the Constitution.
12. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General Baluchistan and Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad contradicted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that mere construction of a house at a certain place is not sufficient to conclusively prove that a person has permanently settled at such place. It was also pointed out that the petitioner's father along with her parents after coming from India settled at Faisalabad so much so that they got landed property in Faisalabad in lieu of property left by them in India. The petitioner's father domiciled at Faisalabad at his own choice and he must have obtained a domicile certificate from Faisalabad. Despite instructions to produce his service book which could easily prove that he opted to be domiciled at Faisalabad, he did not produce the same.
13. It was further contended that admittedly the petitioner's father has also constructed a house at Satellite Town Quetta and he has settled permanently at Quetta. He has remained only for five years at Loralai during his entire service and for remaining period of his service he never visited Loralai. He has rented his house at Loralai. The petitioner passed her F.Sc. Examination from Quetta and not from Loralai. All these facts have been considered by the selection committee which ordered the Deputy Commissioner Loralai to conduct a detailed inquiry and submit his report to the effect whether the petitioner or her father are permanent residents of Loralai. The report speaks to the contrary.
14. Reverting back to the first submission of Mr. Muhammad Aslaml Chishti, it may be pointed out that the domicile certificate is issued for the limited purpose of admission in the professional colleges in Baluchistan and such a certificate cannot be taken at par with a domicile certificate which creates right of citizenship. The petitioner herself is a citizen of Pakistan by birth; hence she does not require any domicile certificate to be a citizen of Pakistan.
15. The object of creating reserved seats for different Districts in professional colleges appears to give legal protection to the students of backward areas of Province of Baluchistan in order to bring them at par with the developed areas of the country. This object would certainly be frustrated if the students who are not permanent residents of such Districts but somehow or other manipulate to obtain domicile certificates from such Districts and thus become eligible for such reserved seats.
16. Being encountered with this situation, the prospectus of Bolan Medical College was amended and under rule 34 of the B prospectus of Bolan Medical College, the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to conduct detailed inquiry about the genuineness or otherwise of such certificates in order to scrutinize the authenticity or otherwise of such certificates, and thus to submit his report to the selection committee. The selection committee after taking into consideration such reports shall decide to select on merit basis only those students who are genuine local or domicile and permanently residing in the said District.
17. There has been a lot of confusion about the nature of certificates which are issued for the purpose of determining the permanent residence of a student by the District Magistrate of concerned District. Such certificates are since issued under the Citizenship Act 1951, hence it has often been argued that such certificates once issued cannot be cancelled by the District Magistrates because it would tantamount to cancellation of the citizenship of holder of such ., certificate. In almost majority of such cases the persons holding such ` certificates are citizens by birth, therefore regarding such certificates It may be pointed out that the same are issued only to determine permanent abode of the candidate. This question was dilated upon and finally determined by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1980 in case of "Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner-cum--Political Agent Loralai" as reported in 1980 S.C.M.R. 456. It was observed in the said case about the domicile that the word "domicile" has not been defined in the Pakistan Citizenship Act and that every person carries the domicile of the country in which he is born; that so long as he does not intentionally and by the exercise of free volition choose the domicile of another country he carries the domicile of his origin; and that to prove that he had acquired, another domicile of his choice he must show that he had intentionally taken a decision in that behalf in the sense that tie had taken abode therein with the intention making it his permanent residence.
18. It was further observed by their Lordships that the word "domicile" and "permanent residence" are two distinct and separate concepts because when a person is granted a domicile certificate he would be deemed to be a domicile of Pakistan and not of a province or a part of a province. The intention of the Legislature was to convey that the applicant having ordinarily resided for not less than a year has now expressed his intention to make it permanent place of residence; thus the grant of domicile certificate means the grant of permanent residence certificate.
19. In the light of the aforesaid observations it is now abundantly clear that the certificate issued to a candidate for professional colleges is in fact the permanent residence certificate.
20. Now adverting to the facts of the present case the contesting students from Loralai raised objection to the candidature of the present petitioner contending that she is not permanent resident of District Loralai. On this, selection committee directed the Deputy Commissioner Loralai to conduct detailed inquiry into the bona fides of the candidate. According to the report of the Deputy Commissioner Loralai on the basis of inquiry conducted through Additional Deputy Commissioner Loralai, the father of the candidate migrated from India along with his parents in the year 1947 at the age of 13/14 years and their family settled at Faisalabad when they acquitted immovable property in lieu of property left by them in India. The father of the petitioner was educated at Faisalabad upto B.Sc. It was opined by the Deputy Commissioner that the permanent residence of the petitioner's father is Faisalabad where his whole family is settled after partition and that in any case Loralai is not the permanent, place of residence of the petitioner or her father.
21. The Selection Committee also probed into the matter and it was revealed that the petitioner and her parents have also constructed a house at Satellite Town, Quetta and are residing there. There is no evidence available on record that the petitioner's father has even gone to Loralai after his transfer from there. He has however, rented out the house which was constructed at Loralai. The fact that petitioner and her father are residing at Quetta in their private house is not denied.
22. As observed earlier, it is not construction of a house alone, but the intention to permanently reside at a place which confers entitlement for issuance of such certificate. Such intention can be gathered from overall behaviour and attitude of a family towards the said place. As for instance, the petitioner's father has got property at Faisalabad, Loralai and Quetta. Her parents and other family members are settled at Faisalabad. He has no relation at Loralai. He has got a private house at Quetta and living with his family here Keeping all this in view no prudent man would come to the conclusion that the petitioner has decided to permanently settle at Loralai. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the selection committee that she is permanent resident of Loralai. The selection committee after taking into consideration all such material has drawn conclusions that the petitioner is not a bona fide candidate. Inferences drawn by the selection committee ' are neither arbitrary nor fanciful, therefore, no legitimate exception can be taken to such conclusions.
23. About the contention that the permanent residence certificate of the petitioner's father must be treated as a valid document on the basis of maxim that this being a public document and there is always presumption' of regularity with regard to all official acts until that presumption is rebutted, that action cannot be challenged. In fact this was one of the ratio decidendi in famous case of Saeed Ahmed Khan as reported in PLD 1974 SC 151, which was referred to by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti.
24. We agree with all humbleness with observation made in the aforesaid case, but so far as the present case is concerned, the said authority is not relevant because the contents of the certificate issued to the petitioner's father were rebutted by Deputy Commissioner Loralai after due inquiry conducted in the matter and after when the petitioner was provided full opportunity to prove its genuineness.
25. The second limb of the argument of Mr. Aslam Chishti was that since the petitioner's father in exercise of his free volition selected Loralai to be his permanent residence, hence denial of the same would tantamount to infringement of Article 15 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
26. Article 15 of Constitution of Pakistan is reproduced as under:- "Every citizen shall have the right to remain in, and, subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof.
27. The authorities have never imposed any restriction to the free movement of the petitioner and have never created any hardship that she cannot reside or settle anywhere in the country. Her grand-parents settled at Faisalabad where they got landed property. Her father was taken into service in 1963 and came to Quetta and was transferred to Loralai where he constructed a house.
28. He was transferred to Khuzdar and then transferred to Quetta. He again constructed a house in Satellite Town, Quetta.
29. Similarly the petitioner was born at Nushki, got her first education at Khuzdar, then in Loralai and lastly did her F.Sc. From Quetta. There was no restriction on the movement of the petitioner. The question that any restriction was imposed on her choice to permanently reside anywhere in the province is devoid of any force.The real issue was whether at the relevant time, she was virtually permanent resident of Loralai or not? And the selection committee after due inquiry concluded that she was not.
30. As such in our considered view, the rights as guaranteed by Article 15 of Constitution have not been infringed.
31. Lastly our attention was invited by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti that the cases decided and reported in PLD 1978 Quetta 17 are relevant for the purpose of settlement of point in issue. We have gone through the said authority. It is observed that the petitioner's father in one of the above- mentioned cases, arrived at Quetta in 1939-40. His maternal-grandfather was living since 1922.
32. Magistrate's certificate showing him to be a resident of rural area. Assistant Commissioner also certifying him to be a resident of rural area. Furthermore, in the said case the petitioner was not given opportunity while his domicile certificate was cancelled; hence on all such facts the case of the present petitioner is quite distinguishable. Furthermore rule 34 of the prospectus of Bolan Medical College was introduced later on and was not available for consideration in the said case hence in our calculated view the same authority serve no useful purpose in this case. The fact that petitioner's brother was given admission in Bolan Medical College from reserved seats of Loralai by itself is not a sufficient circumstance to prove the genuineness of petitioner's claim. Firstly because no one raised objection to his candidature and secondly for the reason that no inquiry was conducted to prove the propriety or legality of the said certificate.
33. It may be observed that in constitutional jurisdiction if the High Court is satisfied that ttie conclusions drawn by the administrative tribunal are reasonable, correct and do not suffer from perversity then no interference is called for. However, the High Court may interfere when administrative tribunals decide in arbitrary manner amounting to abuse of jurisdiction. We find that the selection committee has neither acted in arbitrary manner nor its orders suffer from perversity.
34. The selection committee has taken into consideration material facts placed before it in the shape of report and inquiry of the Deputy Commissioner and has rightly decided in favour of the private respondents.
35. Thus the selection committee while refusing admission to the petitioner has not fallen into any error not to speak of error amountingto lack of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction.
36. For all such reasons we are not inclined to interfere in the decision arrived at by the selection committee. Consequently this petition fails which is hereby dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.