' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The appellant applied for admission to Bolan Medical College, Quetta in the first feat M.B., B.S. Class, for the academic year 1988-89 against the reserved seat for girl students from District Lasbella. The Selection Committee of Bolan Medical College, however, declined admission to the appellant on the ground that she was not a bona fide resident of Lasbella District, as in the Service Book of appellant's father, the latter had shown his place of residence as Jacobabad which was subsequently changed to Mirpur Mathelo. The appellant challanged the decision of the Selection Committee of respondent No, 2 in a Constitution petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution before the. Balochistan High Court but without any success. The learned Judges of the High Court found that in the report of Deputy Commissioner submitted to Selection Committee of respondent No 2 it was mentioned that the appellant's father originally obtained the domicile certificate from Jacobabad, which was changed to that of Mirpur Mathelo, District Sukkur, and without changing the domicile of Sukkur District he obtained the domicile of Lasbella. It was also found by the learned Judges of the High Court that in the domicile certificate issued to appellant's father in the year 1966, the age of appellant was shown as 16 years while she was born on 15-2-1969. The learned Judges also came to the conclusion that the appellant's father while applying for his T.T.A. Clearly mentioned that he wanted to return to his 'home after retirement and although it was not mentioned whether he wanted to go to Jacobabad or Mirpur Mathelo but in view of the above-stated facts he could not be deemed to have adopted Lasbella as his home Town. The learned Judges of the High Court lastly found that the appellant never obtained her domicile certificate from Lasbella and relied on the domicile issued in favour of her father. On the above consideration, the learned Judges of the High Court found that the order passed by the Selection Committee of respondent No, 2 did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. Leave was granted in the above case as follows:-- "In this petition for leave to appeal arising out of a question of admission of a candidate in a Medical College in Balochistan, after hearing the learned counsel we passed the following short order: ' For the reasons to be recorded later, leave to appeal is granted in this petition. Security Rs, 2,000.
' The petitioner is permitted to appear before the Selection Committee at Mustang on 13-2-1992 as already scheduled with an amended application which shall be submitted in Court today by the learned counsel on her behalf. And it should be faxed by the office today to the Chairman, Public Service Commission, Zarghoon Road, Quetta, who is also the Chairman of Selection Committee respondent No,
1. The committee shall interview the petitioner on 13-2-1992 for provisional admission for the ensuing session subject to further orders by this Court.
' The petitioner has been denied the admission in College in District Bela on the reserved seat by the Selection Committee, (respondent No, 1) mainly on the question of domicile. As is stated in the impugned order it was the case of the petitioner that she was born in Lasbella, got her education and passed her F.Sc. (pre-medical) from Quetta, as there was no College at Bela. She had attached domicile certificate of her father. However, she did not obtain a domicile certificate from the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate Lasbela as she has relied on the domicile of her father which had included the petitioner also as a member of the family of the certificate-holder.
This certificate was issued in 1966. Against the petitioner's name therein her age is mentioned as 16 years. Since the domicile certificate was condition precedent for obtaining admission on the seat in question the Selection Committee after examining the case of the petitioner did not accept the petitioner's plea regarding her domicile and the certificate of her father. She having failed before the Selection Committee as well as in the High Court in its Constitutional (writ) jurisdiction, has sought leave to appeal.
' Learned counsel has argued and met with one by one almost all the points noted in the impugned order which prevalied with the High Court for denying relief to the petitioner. We will mention only two of them. One reason for not accepting the petitioner's plea was that her age as mentioned in the certificate issued in 1966 was 16 years while she was born in 1969; therefore, it was an impossibility. Learned counsel has stated that if somebody would have asked for the explanation it was so sound and easily forthcoming that if noticed the result would have been different. He took us through the material to show that sometime in August 1986 the father of the petitioner made an appliction to the District Magistrate for the amendment of his certificate. This application was allowed and as a result thereof the name of the petitioner amongst others was also added in the certificate which had been issued nearly two decades earlier. In this context the age of the petitioner mentioned in the certificate would be her almost exact age at the time amendment in the certificate was made. Subject to all just exceptions this explanation undoubtedly is reasonable.
' Learned counsel also explained another circumstance noted in the impugned judgment as going against the petitioner, namely, that her father belongs to the Province of Sindh and it was only on account of his service in Balochistan that he resided in that Province and had animus revertendi to Sindh in so far as his post-retirement period is concerned; and, looked at in this context his family including the petitioner would also follow the example of the head of the family. In this behalf the learned counsel explained that the petitioner's family is a Mahajir family. No doubt he had attempted to settle in Sindh originally but subsequently he had made the choice for settling in Balochistan and the resolve of the petitioner's father is relation to his home has not been correctly understood in its proper context. He had mentioned in his TTA that he would return to his home after retirement. According to the learned counsel the petitioner's father's home was also within Balochistan and he at the time of retirement had no intention of settling in Sindh. This and other questions raised in this petition require examination.
It would also need examination; whether this case is not fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Miss Sumaeea Zareen v. Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and others (1991 SCM R 2099). In so far as it goes it does support the petitioner's case.
' In the light of the foregoing discussion with the short order reproduced in the opening part of this order, we grant leave to appeal."
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the official respondents. No one appeared for respondent No,
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges of High Court that the age of the appellant, shown in the domicile certificate issued to her father in 1966 as 16 years, was an impossibility as the appellant was admittedly born on 15-24969, is based on misreading of the document and non-consideration of the material facts. The learned counsel pointed out that the original domicile certificate issued to the appellant's father on 8-9-1966 did not contain name of the appellant who was born subsequently. However, on 13-8-1986, the appellant's father made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for inclusion of name of the appellant and two other children namely, Sheila Akhtar and Kashif Mehmood, who were born after the issuance of the Domicile Certificate and accordingly the certificate was amended on 19-11-1986. The above assertions of the appellant have not been denied either by the official respondents or by the private respondent. The contention otherwise appears to be correct as at page 79 of the file, a copy of the original certificate of domicile issued to the appellant's father has been placed, which contains the name of his wife and four children namely, Kishwar Sultant, Azra Khan, Wasif Ali and Affat Sultant. At page 80 of the file, there is an application by the appellant's father dated 13-8-1986 addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Lasbella `Othal in which he had prayed for inclusion of the names of three children, namely, Shahzadi Salima (appellant), Shehla Akhtar and Kashif Mehmood aged 16, 13 and 11 years respectively, in the domicile certificate issued to him.
' This application was allowed and the amendment was made in the domicile certificate, a photostat copy whereof has been produced at page 81 of the file. The photostat copy of the amended domicile certificate contained the following note: "Note.---Certified that the names and ages of the children at S. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 has been included in this Duplicate Domicile Certificate on 19-11-1986."
3. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, did not advert to this note which clearly mentioned that the children mentioned at serial Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the domicile certificate were included in the domicile certificate on 19-11-1986. It is, therefore, quite clear that there was neither any misstatement nor there was any doubtful circumstance which rendered the domicile certificate, relied by the appellant, inadmissible. It is an admitted positi6n that the appellant's father came over to Lasbella District in 1955 and started living there with his family. He continued to reside there from 1955 until his retirement in the year 1990 and even after retirement he continued to live at Lasbella. This fact is clearly borne out from the report of the Deputy Commissioner submitted to the Selection Committee of respondent No, 2 which reads as follows:-- "Miss Saleema Mughal d/o Mehmood Akhtar ' Mr. Mehmood Akhtar father of the applicant was issued a Domicile Certificate bearing No, 2519/GB dated 8-9-66 by the District Magistrate, Lasbela, wherein applicant's date of arrival at the place of Domicile is mentioned as 28th December, 1965. Mr. Mehmood Akhtar has served as a Teacher in Government Boys Secondary School, Bela, since his date of arrival in this District. He has retired from the same school last year after an extended period of service. However, page No, 2 of the service book of Mr. Mehmood Akhtar contained an entry at S. No, 3 wherein his residence has been mentioned as Jacobabad. This entry has been amended later on as "Domicile Mirpur Mathelo, District Sukkur". Mehmood Akhtar has been residing in this District ever since and has been known for staying in the District even in the of summer and other vacations in the institution of his service has studied in Government High School, Mirpur Mathelo from where he still retains his school leaving certificate.
' Mr. Wasif Ali son of Mehmood Akhtar has also been issued certificate of Domicile beaming No, 1063/13(6)/GB dated 5-2-1989 by the District Magistrate, Lasbella. He has attained a Degree of Bachelor in Engineering and is presently employed as Lecturer in Engineering College, Khuzdar.
They own a house in Bela Town which is their permanent place of residence and also a piece of land in Sub-Division Hub in the same District."
' Apart from it, it is an admitted position in the case that the appellant was born in Lasbella and received her school as well as college education at Lasbella and Quetta within the Province of Balochistan. In fact, the learned Judges of High Court in the impugned judgment while considering the case of the appellant with regard to her claim of domicile of Lasbella observed as follows:-- "Since she was born in Bela and got her education uptil Matriculation hence she could have easily obtained a domicile certificate of Bela but she did not."
4. In view of the above-stated facts, there was hardly any material either before the Selection Committee or before the learned Judges of the High Court to hold that the appellant was not a bona fide resident of Lasbella Dist:ict. In the case of Miss Sumaeea Zareen v. Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and others (1991 SCM R 2099) this Court while interpreting the scope of the expression "as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district agency of which he/she has produced the local/domicile certificate", in the Prospectus of the College observed as follows: "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 keyword '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 SCM R 392).
' The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition, 1976) and Chambers 20th Dictionary (New Edition), define the above word as follows:-- "belonging v.i.
1. Be rightly assigned to (as duty, right, possession, natural or usual accompaniment, example in classification, characteristic, part, member, inhabitant, appendate); 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 Longen belong f. OE langian (geland at hand)." "belong bi-blong, 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 place narrow or strict construction. We may point out that Article 15 of the Constitution confers right on every citizen subject to reasonable restrictions 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 Balochistan 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 foregery by the appellant's father, were considerations alien to the jurisdiction of the Committee. It is the statps 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-quoted unreported judgment of this Court."
' We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and declare the order passed by the Selection Committe of respondent No,2 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We would have normally remanded the case to the Selection Committee for consideration of the case of the appellant in the light of the above observation but as the appellant was allowed admission to 1st year M.B.,B.S. Classes by virtue of the leave granting order dated 11-2-1992 and she continued her studies for over one year, and we have reached the conclusion that in view of the un-controverted facts referred to above, she is a bona fide resident of Lasbella, therefore instead of remanding the case to respondent No, 2 we direct that her provisional admission will be treated as regular admission to the M.B.,B.S. Classes. Respondent No, 4 who was allowed admission against the reserved seat for the girl student from Lasbella may have to give way on account of the above order. However, keeping in view the fact that respondent No, 4 has also continued his studies in the M.B.,B.S. Classes for over one year, the authority may favourably consider his case and if it found possible he may be allowed to continue his studies in the college instead of dislodging him. In the circumstances of the case, we will make no order as to costs.