1. ' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, ACTG. C.J.---This Constitution petition is directed against order of Selection Committee, Balon Medical College Quetta, whereby petitioner's candidature for admission in First Year class of B.D.S. Bolan Medical College during academic session 1988-89 against reserved seats of District Jaffarabad has been rejected.
2. Relevant facts briefly mentioned are, that petitioner is local resident of Goth Haji Mohammad Yakoob Tchsil Usta Mohammad. He got Primary, Middle and Secondary Education from Government High School Usta Muhammad. Thereafter he joined Public School Latifabad (Hyderabad) and passed F.Sc. Pre-Medical Examination from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad (Sindh) by securing 584 marks. Petitioner also received N.C.C.
2. Training providing him benefit of twenty marks and according to prospectus had 584 + 20 = 604 adjusted marks. Whereas respondent Mohammad Ayub and another student Abid Sultan belonging to Jaffarabad District similarly got initial education up to Matric in their home town and joined Public School Latifabad (Hyderabad) for higher secondary education. Said Abid Sultan and respondent Mohammad Ayub qualified their F.Sc Pre-Medical Examination from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, by securing 614 and 595 adjusted marks respectively. It may be seen that respondent No,4 has lesser marks than petitioner, still he was granted admission in preference to him. Petitioner's candidature was rejected through following order:- "The candidate Mr.Mohammad Anwar son of Mohammad Yakoob appeared before the Selection Committee and was heard. The candidate had passed F.Sc from Hyderabad Board for which he could not give cogent and satisfactory reasons. The Committee rejected his application under paragraph 30 of prospectus of Bolan Medical College, Quetta during academic session 1988-89 both for M.B., B.S. And B.D.S. Course."
3. ' Feeling aggrieved from the above decision, present petition was instituted on 27-11-1990. Selection Committee filed counter-affidavit on 11-3-1991 wherein though petitioner's status on merits was accepted yet cause of his rejection was explained in the terms reproduced below:- "The petitioner had passed his Matriculation Examination from Balochistan and then went to Hyderabad Board to pass his F.Sc. - (Pre-Medical) Examination from there as there is every possible chance to get more marks in Hyderabad Board than Balochistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Quetta. During the course of interview he told a self-made story that due to tribal dispute a murder took place and the petitioner went to Hyderabad to save his life. It is very strange that due to tribal dispute he went to Hyderabad in order to save his life. It was not difficult for the other party to kill him at Hyderabad. Hyderabad was not a safe place for the petitioner.
4. Those who were his enemies could easily kill him at Hyderabad. So the plea taken by the petitioner before the members of the Selection Committee was not so strong and that is why the members of the Selection Committee rejected his self-made story. On the other hand the other two candidates namely M/s. Abid Sultan and Mohammad Ayub stated before the Committee that they went to Hyderabad Board for the sake of better education at Public School Latifabad (Hyderabad). They had spoken the truth and the Selection Committee was much pleased to select the both candidates although the respondent No,4 in this petition namely Mr. Muhammad Ayub son of Haji Allah Dina had obtained lesser marks than the petitioner. The petitioner by telling a false story which was irrelevant had no scope of selection. The Selection Committee has exercised the discretion vested in it under the rules after the verification and by giving opportunity to all concerned."
5. ' Mr. Mohammad Riaz Ahmed learned counsel for petitioner attacking the impugned order strenuously urged that Selection Committee had made discrimination merely to favour respondent No,4, who undisputedly had lesser marks. Learned counsel contended that all the three candidates i,e, (i) Petitioner, (ii) Respondent No,4, and (iii) Abid Sultan have studied, outside the Province, in the same institution therefore denial of admission to petitioner who secured more marks was highly improper and arbitrary.
6. ' On the other hand Ch. Ejaz Yousaf learned counsel for respondent No,4 emphatically argued that Selection Committee enjoys exclusive jurisdiction to decide entitlement of candidates for admission in Ist Year Class of B.D.S. Bolan Medical College. He submitted that discretion exercised by the Selection Committee, could not he legitimately challenged by invoking Constitutional jurisdiciton. Learned Advocate-General, however, felt great difficulty in supporting the impugned order passed by Selection Committee of Bolan Medical College.
7. ' We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by learned counsel for parties.
8. Admittedly petitioner Mohammad Anwar, respondent No,4 Mohammad Ayub, and Abid Sultan belonged to Usta Mohammad. They joined Public. School Latifabad (Hyderabad) and passed Pre- Medical Examination from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Hyderabad, the same year. However, petitioner's candidature was rejected merely on his failure to furnish cogent and satisfactory reasons to the Committee about his passing F.Sc. Examination from Hyderabad Board within the purview of paragraph 30 of the prospectus. In order to appreciate real controversy determinable through this petition, it would be pertinent to reproduce here paragraph 30 of the prospectus:- "Para 30. The candidates must have passed the Matriculation with Science and Intermediate Science Pre-Medical Examination from Balochistan unless the candidates could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reasons for not studying Balochistan for clainiing exemption from this condition."
9. ' On bare reading it can be seen that paragraph 30, requires each candidate applying for admission in Bolan Medical College to have passed his Matriculation and Pre-Medical Science Examination from Balochistan, unless exemption is granted by Selection Committee after being satisfied about cogent reason for studying outside the Province. In the instant case (i) petitioner,
(ii) Respondent Muhammad Ayub, and (iii) Abid Sultan had passed their F.Sc. Pre-Medical Examination from Hyderabad Board, therefore, under paragraph 30, it was obligatory for all of them to furnish satisfactory explanation about studying outside the Province. Certainly all three candidates referred above, have primarily common features as regards their studying out of the Province. It is pertinent to note that neither Abid Sultan nor respondent No,4 even applied for requisite exemption. However, petitioner furnished his explanation showing existence of tribal dispute resulting in murder of their near relation, which compelled his father to shift from Usta Mohammad. A certificate issued by District Magistrate Jaffarbad confirming factum of tribal dispute alongwith copy of F.I.R. Etc. Was also placed before, Selection Committee, by the petitioner to substantiate his stand. Perhaps plea regarding tribal dispute did not find favour with Selection Committee and his admission was refused on account of his failure to furnish satisfactory explanation concerning studying out of Province. Now question arises, that when more than one pica is taken by the candidate and any one ground is rejected, whether other circumstance be also ignored. This strict approach having extreme penal consequence in our opinion cannot be adopted specially in student matters. Without prejudice, we may observe here that stand of petitioner concerning existence of tribal dispute on the basis of documents produced by him was apparently quite plausible. However, even if Selection Committee for some reasons declined to consider this aspect; then at least on the parity of circumstances vis-i-vis respondent No,4, candidature of petitioner in our view could not be rejected. We have given our anxious thought to all the aspects relatable to comparative eligibility for admission between petitioner, respondent No,4, and Sultan Abid but could not find any distinction for ignoring petitioner or showing preference to respondent No,4. Undisputedly these three candidates have qualified their F.Sc.Pre- Medical from Public School Latifabad (Hyderabad). If Selection Committee thought "better education" as sufficient, for crossing barrier placed by section 30 of the prospectus in that case, all three above-named candidates including petitioner obviously stood on equal footings. We are extremely astonished how and by what standard could Selection Committee treat candidature of Abid Sultan and respondent No,4, regarding studying at Hyderabad for purposes of better education, but in the same breath disallow the petitioner. Record is completely silent about such discrimination and highhandedness of Selection Committee. It hardly needs elucidation that each citizen has inalienable right for equal treatment, and facility of Having equal opportunities within reasonable limits prescribed by law. Similarly State functionaries or administrative tribunals are bound to exercise their authority or discretion in a fair and just manner without displaying favour or discrimination. Their conduct in exercising discretion is required to be based on judicious evaluation of attending circumstances rather than nepotism, whims or caprice. We are thus persuaded to observe that Selection Committee while considering rival claims of abovementioned students of District Jaffarabad made glaring discrimination and unjustifiably picked respondent No,4, depriving petitioner of his legitimate right of admission in the Ist Year Class of B.D.S. Bolan Medical College, Quetta. Amazingly, official respondents in the counter-affidavit have now carved out new explanation saying that petitioner's candidature was rejected because plea for claiming condonation was found to be false. Whereas impugned order is conspicuously silent about it.
10. Efforts of public functionaries for unnecessarily improving the stand by introducting new material to oppose legal right of parties certainly reflects mala fides. We thus feel that impugned order does not stand the test of law and justice, being patently discriminatory, unreasonable, non-speaking, arbitrary and based on caprice. It is obligatory even for administrative tribunals to deal with all persons equally, uniformly, impartially and fairly thereby abstaining from arbitrary actions. Besides administrative tribunal while bestowed with authority for dealing with legal rights of people, should always give plausible and speaking reasons for allowing or disallowing their respective claims.
11. More care is needed when inter se rights of students with close similarity have far-reaching effects on their future career. In such circumstances, non-speaking, arbitrary or mala fide orders of executive functionaries or administrative tribunals must be deprecated. Here we would like to refer to observations from Division Bench judgment of this Court in case Miss Nasreen Fatima v. Principal, Bolan Medical College PLD 1978 Quetta 17 relevant portion is reproduced below:- "Arbitrary decisions are never considered wholesome in our system of law_ One of the dominant tests of a decisions being arbitrary is whether it proceeds on any substantial reason or exhibits lack of application of mind. Such manner of exercise of jurisdiction has very often been equated with or called by a synonym of abuse of jurisdiction. Such abuse manifests itself by making it patent that the authority that had the lis before it, either overlooked the evidence brought before it or by reason of preconceived notions misdirected itself to arrive at such conclusions which are either perverse or could not be substantiated on the basis of available evidence. Such arbitrariness or abuse of jurisdiciton may very often become patent by an ad hoc observation indicating a desire to overlook the available evidence coupled with a longing for evidence which in the imagination of the authority should have been produced. Very often a cloak is provided for arbitrary decision by mention of the words that some evidence or the best evidence has not been produced but the fact of the matter may well be that the available evidence is overlooked. This is in our humble opinion is arbitrariness of the worst type when a tribunal dealing with the rights of the citizen overlooks what is placed before it in the form of evidence and supplements its desire to overlook the evidence by finding a fault with the petitioner that the best evidence has not been produced."
12. Keeping in view aforesaid discussion and following the principle quoted hereinabove, we are inclined to conclude that impugned order has been passed by the Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College Quetta in an arbitrary and capricious manner, therefore, must be struck down.
13. Accordingly petition is accepted. Petitioner is directed to be admitted in the Ist Year B.D.S. Class of Bolan Medical College. Quetta.
14. ' This petition was decided by our short order of even date and here are the reasons for the same.