AJMAL MIAN, J: --Leave to appeal was granted against the dismissal judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Baluchistan High Court in Constitution Petition No.196 of 1989 filed by the appellant against the order dated Nil passed by respondent No.1 (The Selection Committee for the Admission to the Bolan Medical College, Quetta) rejecting the appellant's application for admission for the academic year 1987-88; to consider the following questions:----
(i) whether the Selection Committee was justified in concluding that the appellant's father had committed forgery in his service book without holding a proper enquiry in this regard on the basis of mere visual examination of a photostat copy of the service book;
(ii) whether in view of para. 25 of the Admission Policy for the session 1987--88 the appellant could have been denied the admission on the ground that her father had allegedly produced a forged document for the admission in the previous year; and
(iii) whether the Selection Committee was under duty to ascertain the correct facts as to the entitlement of the appellant's admission itself.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant was born in Lasbella during the year 1970. She passed her Matriculation Examination in the year 1984 from the Government Girls High School, Lasbella, and her F.Sc. Pre-Medical Examination from the Government Girls College at Quetta in the year 1986. The appellant applied for admission in First Year Class of Bolan Medical College for the session 1986-87 but her application was rejected by the Selection Committee, hereinafter referred to as the Committee, on the ground that the appellant's father was asked to produce service book as the appellant's claim to be domicile of Lasbella was objected to by certain candidates for the admission and upon production of a photostat copy of the service book, it transpired that the first page of the service book of her father showed "Karachi" as his place of domicile which was later on forged by substituting "Bela". It seems that thereafter the appellant applied for domicile in her name. The Deputy Commissioner on 8-11-1988 granted the same to the appellant after necessary enquiries. The appellant again applied for her admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. In the Bolan Medical College for the session 1987-88 on the basis of her aforesaid domicile certificate. However, this time also the Committee dismissed the appellant's application on the same ground on which her previous application for admission was rejected.
3. Against the above order the appellant filed the aforesaid Constitution Petition which was declined on three grounds, namely:-----
(i) that since the candidature of the appellant was rejected by the Committee for the session 1986- 87 on the ground that she was not genuine candidate from Lasbella district and actually belonged to Karachi, and as the above order was not challenged by the appellant, the principle of implied res judicata was applicable and hence the petition was not maintainable; .
(ii) that para.34 of the prospectus empowers the Committee to hold inquiry about candidate's status of belonging to a particular district; and
(iii) that there was hardly any defect or error in the exercise of jurisdiction or determination of controversy by the Committee.
Thereupon, the appellant filed the aforesaid petition for leave to appeal which was granted as observed hereinabove.
4. In support of the above appeal, it has been urged by Mr. Talmiz Burney, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the appellant, that the reasons found favour with respondent No.1 for rejecting the appellant's application for admission are not sustainable in law and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order of the Committee.
On the other hand, Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, learned Advocate-General appearing for the official respondents, has urged that the appellant was rightly declined admission by respondent No.1 and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's Constitution Petition.
5. Before taking up the above contentions, we may deal with the question, whether the rejection of the appellant's application for admission for the academic year 1986-87 on the ground that the family did not belong to Lasbella, constituted implied res judicata for the academic year 1987-88. In this regard, it may be appropriated to refer to section 11, C.P.C. Which refers to the above doctrine of res judicata and which reads as follows:---- "11. Res judicata.--No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in aformer suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Explanation I.--The expression `former suit' shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II.--For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III.--The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV.--Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.--Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI.--Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the person so litigating."
A perusal of the above-quoted section of the C.P.C. Indicates that it is applicable to a suit which may include some other judicial proceedings if the conditions contained therein are present. A proceeding before the Committee cannot be said to be judicial proceeding in terms of above section 11. Additionally, the appellant did not have personal domicile when she applied for the year 1986-87 but obtained the same after her application for the admission for the above year was rejected and filed the same alongwith the present application for admission and, therefore, the appellant had fresh cause of action to apply.
6. Adverting to the above contentions of the learned counsel, it may be pertinent to reproduce hereinbelow respondent No.1's impugned order which reads as follows:---- "Miss Sumaeea Zareen d./o Muhammad Zaki. The candidate appeared before the Selection Committee and was heard. The Principal, Bolan Medical College informed the Committee that Miss Sumaeea Zareen d/o Muhammad Zaki had also applied for admission to Bolan Medical College during the last year 1986-87 but her application was rejected by the Committee for the reason that the Committee had concluded that the family did not belong to Lasbella District but actually the family belonged to Karachi. It was desired by the Committee last year that the photostat copy of first page of the service book of her father should be produced before the Committee. On examining the first page of the service book it was observed that the address given on first page of the service book of candidate's father was forcedly changed from `Karachi' to 'Bela'. The candidate was asked by the Committee to put forth anything new in support of her claim, but, she could not produce any explanation for the forged change in the address of her father in his service book. The father of the candidate also appeared before the Committee on 13th April, 1989, at Quetta to explain the situation, but, could not satisfy the Committee and the Selection Committee rejected the application of Miss Sumaeea Zareen d/o Muhammad Zaki considering that she was not a genuine candidate from Lasbella District."
7. A perusal of the above-quoted order indicates that respondent No.1 declined admission to the appellant on two grounds, namely:-----
(i) that she was declined admission last year (1986-87) for the reason that the Committee had concluded that the family did not belong to Lasbella District but actually the family belonged to Karachi; and
(ii) the last year Committee found that the appellant's father had committed forgery on the first page of the service book by allegedly changing the word `Karachi' to 'Bela' in the address of which he was unable to give explanation even when he appeared on 13-4-1989 before the Committee.
8. It may be pertinent at this stage to refer to para. 34 of the prospectus referred to by the High Court in the impugned judgment, in order to understand the scope of the jurisdiction of the Committee, which reads as follows:---- "34. The Selection Committee, on the basis of the documents attached with the application form of the candidate, as required under paragraph 37 of the prospectus and/or further inquiry through the Deputy Commissioner or other sources, shall be competent to decide .As to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district agency of which he/she has produced the local/domicile certificate and whether he/she is entitled of being selected against the seats of that district/agency or not. The candidate shall be bound to abide by the decision of the Selection Committee."
9. A plain reading of the above-quoted para. Shows that the Committee on the basis of the.
Documents attached with the application form of a candidate in terms of para. 37 of the prospectus and/or on the basis of further inquiry through the Deputy Commissioner or other sources is to decide, whether a candidate actually belongs to the district agency of which he/she has produced the local/domicile certificate and whether he/she is entitled of being selected against the seat of that district agency or not. It does not provide that the Committee is to decide whether the family belongs to the district agency concerned. It may be advantageous to quote the following observations of this Court from an unreported judgment in the case of Miss Azra Tasneem v. Selection Committee constituted for admission to Bolan Medical College, through its Chairman, and others decided on 28-1-1990 in C.P.LA. No.95-Q of 1989 construing the above para. 34, which reads as follows:----- "7. The third defect in the Selection Committee's approach to the question was that it unanimously decided that the family of the petitioner was not entitled to domicile certificate as the family had already permanently settled in Faisalabad. Within the four corners of the para. 34 of the Regulation, the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction, authority or competence to sit on judgment, on the genuineness or non-genuineness of the domicile certificate. The domical certificate is primarily granted to persons who are entitled by residence in a District and for a specified number of years coupled with the intention to settle there. The Selection Committee is not concerned with these requirements. It is concerned with, whether the candidate can be said to belong to that District. It is not its duty under the law applicable to domicile certificates to challenge the genuineness or otherwise of the domicile certificate itself. There is no finding recorded by the Selection Committee that the petitioner, does not, on the facts disclosed by her and in the circumstances explained by her, belong to Quetta."
10. It may be observed that from the above-reproduced impugned order of the Committee it is evident that the Committee has declined on grounds foreign to the grounds referred to in above para 34. The Committee neither in the impugned order nor before the High Court nor before us by filing counter affidavit or any other document controverted the following facts:----
(i) that the appellant was born in the year 1970 at Lasbella and was brought up there, completed her primary education and passed her Matriculation Examination in the year 1984 from Government Girls High School, Lasbella, and that as there was no Girls College at Bela at the material time, she passed her Intermediate Examination from the Government College at Quetta in the year 1986;
(ii) that on 2-3-1978 the appellant's father purchased a residential plot at Moza Baroot, Tehsil Hub, District Lasbella, and constructed residential house thereon after obtaining loan from the House Building Finance Corporation in order to continue as permanent resident of Lasbella and live with his family members including the appellant;
(iii) that the appellant's brother, Mohammad Amir, was admitted to Bolan Medical College against one of the seats reserved for District Lasbella and was a student of IInd Year at the relevant time.
11. Since the words "as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district agency of which he/she has produced the local/domicile certificate" have been used, it may be appropriate to refer to the ordinary literary meaning of the key word "belong" as it is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes or the rules framed thereunder that the words have to be given their ordinary meaning in the absence of any special meaning assigned to them under the relevant statute or the statutory rules. In this behalf reference may be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashiq Hussain and others v. The State (1989 SCMR 392).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition 1976) and Chambers 20th Dictionary (New Edition), define the above word as-follows:----- "belong v.i.1. Be rightly assigned to (as duty, right, possession, natural or usual accompaniment, example in classification, characteristic, part, member, inhabitant, appendage); to, be member of (club, household, grade of society, etc.)
2. Be resident in or connected with.
3. Be rightly placed or classified (in, under, etc.); fit a specified environment etc. (ME, app. An intensive, f. BE- 2, of ME 1 n en belong f. OE langian (geland at hand)." "belong bi-long, v.i. (in all senses usu. With to) to go along (with): to pertain (to): to be the property (of): to be part or appendage (of), or in ., any way connected (with): to be specially the business (of)."
From the above-quoted definition, it is evident that the above word has very wide connotation as it inter alia includes a resident, a native and an inhabitant. In the absence of any special definition in the prospectus there seems to be no justifiable reason to plate narrow or strict construction. We may point out that Article 15 of the Constitution confers right on every citizen subject to reasonable restriction imposed by law in public interest to enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof. The above Constitutional fundamental right cannot be in any manner impaired or defeated directly or indirectly. Above para 34 of the prospectus is to be construed as to advance the objective envisaged by the above Article.
12. On the basis of the above uncontroverted facts that the appellant was born in Lasbella in 1970, was brought up there, got her entire education there except her Intermediate Examination for want of a Girls College, it cannot be -held that she does not belong to Lasbella. The mere fact that the appellant's father came to the Province of Baluchistan after joining service as a teacher in 1969, would not negate the above status of the appellant. It has not been brought on record that the appellant in fact has been residing at any other place than "; Lasbella or Quetta for her college education. The alleged Karachi address in the service book of the appellant's father and its alleged alteration by committing alleged forgery by the appellant's father, were considerations alien to the jurisdiction of the Committee. It is the status of a candidate which is to be determined and not of the family as pointed out hereinabove. Additionally, we may point out that there is no material on record to conclude that the appellant's father has not opted to settle down permanently in Lasbella by purchasing a plot of land and by raising construction of a house thereon and residing therein with his family and by obtaining a domicile certificate on 12-9-1978. The impugned order of the Committee is apparently in conflict with the above-quo d unreported judgment of this Court.
13. We would have remanded the case to the Committee but since the above facts have not been controverted by the official respondents including the Committee and as the appellant has already lost two academic years, we are not remanding the same. We, therefore, allow the above appeal and declare that the Committee was not justified in rejecting the appellant's application for admission for the year 1987-88 on the grounds found favour with it and that the appellant is entitled to have, her application for admission considered by the Committee on the assumption that she belongs to Lasbella. We would, therefore, direct the Committee to consider the appellant's application alongwith other applicants from Lasbella for the coming session after notice to the other candidates from Lasbella who may be affected if admission is going to be granted to the appellant on merits. Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, learned Advocate-General/ Baluchistan, has submitted that the applications have already been entertained for admission in Bolan Medical College for the coming session but the list of the candidates has not been finalized. The official respondents before finalizing the list of Lasbella District shall consider the appellant's application in the above terms. However, there will be no order as to costs.