1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, an otherwise eligible candidate for admission to Bolan Medical College, Quetta, seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 27-6-1988 whereby he was denied admission to the college during the year 1987-88 and earlier too in 1986-87.
2. ' The petitioner passed his Matriculation and Intermediate Science examination from Larkana, where his father was domiciled. For seeking admission in Bolan Medical College he claimed to be the Original resident of Kharan District in Baluchistan. He obtained the Local Residence Certificate from the District Magistrate Kharan which was more than once submitted to detailed scrutiny and in the year 1986-87 he was not taken to be a local resident and for that reason denied admission. In the year 1987-88, the Selection Committee twice considered his case, once on the direction of the High Court and denied him the admission. The constitutional petition was dismissed by reference to instruction No, 30 and observing as follows:-- "The rule reads as under:- `30. The candidate must have passed the Matriculation and Intermediate Science (pre-Medical)
3. Examination from Baluchistan unless the candidate could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reasons for not studying in Baluchistan for claiming exemption from this condition.
4. ' No material was placed before us showing that if such objection was successfully met with by petitioner before Selection Committee. In absence whereof we have no reason to disturb such finding of facts arrived at by Selection Committee."
5. ' Mr. Hafeez A. Memon, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken two very weighty and constitutional grounds for challenging the action of the Authorities and these are that the Instruction No, 30 is ultra vires the Constitutional Guarantees of discrimination on the ground of regions etc. And secondly that the Instructions are unreasonable. In any case, according to the learned counsel, they cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of the petitioner and finally it has been said that the rejection was unmerited.
6. We do not find the first three grounds having been argued before the High Court or having been dealt with by the judgment. Considering the seriousness with which the Constitutional grounds are to be taken up and pressed and adjudicated, we do not consider that this would be the proper stage to permit the raising of it.
7. Instruction No, 30 does authorise the Selection Committee to condone the disqualification incurred by the opening part of Instruction No,
30. The petitioner suffered from disqualification contained in the opening part. The existence and the effectiveness of the certificate issued by the District Magistrate is by itself of no consequence unless the Selection Committee is. Satisfied. We do not find anything on the record to establish as to what reasons were given for satisfying the Selection Committee and we are told by the learned counsel that none in writing was submitted. There is a mention in para. 6 of the various grounds and reasons but the one which could offer the good explanation, was, the migration from the Region on account of established enmity, taken up as ground in the petition but not supported by any material whatsoever. In the absence of such material we cannot say that the petitioner discharged that duty which initially lay on him and it is after that, that the Selection Committee should had gone into those reasons and given the reasons for rejecting them.
8. There is no element of retrospectivity involved in it because the rules were changed before the petitioner applied for the year 1987-88. No person acquires a vested right in the conditions of service or admission to any institution at a stage when he acquires the qualification. It is something else which clothes him with a vested right in a matter.
9. ' We do not find any question which may require further examination and leave to appeal is refused.