1. MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, C J.---Petitioner is a local resident of Gendakha, Tehsil Usta Muhammad. After passing matriculatiot examination he got admission in Government College, Larkana and passed F.Sc Pre-medical from Sindh Education Board securing 583 marks. Father of petitioner is a Doctor serving in the Provincial Health Department. Accordingly petitioner applied for admission in the first year Bolan Medical College, Quetta amongst seats reserved for the children of Doctors. It is the case of petitioner that during current year, applications for admission in Boliri Medical College were invited for academic years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Three seats for each session, were reserved for the children of Doctors under Article 3 (ix) of the Prospectus. Procedure for allocating seats amongst different categories of Doctorschildren have been mentioned in Article 14 of the Prospectus which is reproduced below, for ready reference:-- "14. The Selection of candidates against the three seats reserved for the children of Doctors of Balochistan shall be made from amongst the eligible children of the doctors who are local of Balochistan or possess valid Domicile Certificate of Balochistan, according to the following three categories:-- Category-A. Children of doctors working as Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Senior Registrar, Demonstrators and Registrars in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta with at least three yearsservice. The children of retired and deceased teachers of Bolan Medical College are also eligible for the seat provided that the deceased teacher had at least three yearsservice..... One seat.
2. Category-B. Children of doctors serving in the Provincial Health Department with at least three yearsservice, other than those mentioned in Category 'Aabove. The children of retired and deceased doctors shall also be eligible for the seat provided that the deceased doctor had at least three yearsservice... ... One seat Category-C. Children of doctors other than those mentioned in Categories 'Aand 'Babove who are local domicile of Balochistan. The children of retired and deceased doctors falling in this Category are also eligible for this seat; provided that the retired doctor/family of the deceased doctor is residing in Balochistan... On seat.
3. Explanation. A doctor shall be one registered as such with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and the candidate shall have to produce the Certificate of registration of his/her mother, as the case may be, froth the Council."
4. Father of petitioner on 26-1-1988 submitted an application to Secretary Government of Balochistan, explaining circumstances, whereby petitioner was compelled to obtain education from Sindh Province. It would be appropriate to reproduce below in verbatim the said application:-- "To The Secretary to Government of Balochistan, Education Department, Quetta.
5. Subject: PERMISSION TO UNDERGO MY SON IN SINDH PROVINCE FOR EDUCATION.
6. Respectfully I may very kindly be excused to approach your kind and just honour with the following submissions for your kind decision/orders in the matter:-
(a) that my son (namely Mr. Riaz Muhammad Jamali) passed the Secondary School Examination as regular candidate from Government High School, Gandakha, District Jaffarabad);
(b) that I am serving as Assistant District Health Officer, at Dera Murad Jamali and there are no college facilities at Dera Murad Jamali. In the compelling circumstances, I had to admit my son at Larkana College, and at about all my family also settled with my college-going son; (c), by now learnt, that permission of the Government of Balochistan Education Department is must in such situation.
7. It is therefore earnestly requested that your valued orders with regard to permission as necessary may kindly be issued just to save for future complications.
8. Yours Obediently, (Dr. Taj Muhammad Jamali) father of Riaz Muhammad 1st year student, Govt.
9. College, Larkana Sindh."
10. However, Selection Committee after due enquiry on 6th June, 1992 declared final list of successful candidates wherein admission of petitioner was declined. Reasons for rejecting petitioner's candidature are also reproduced hereunder;-- "DOCTORSCHILDREN (1989-90)
11. Category-B.
1. Mr. Riaz Muhammad s/o Dr. Taj Muhammad.
12. The candidate appeared before the Selection Committee and was heard. He passed his F.Sc.
13. Examination from Sukkur for which he could not satisfy the Committee with cogent reasons, so the candidate was rejected by the Selection Committee for studying F.Sc. At Sukkur under paragraph.
14. No,30 of the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, Quetta during the academic session 1989-90."
15. It may be seen that when application for admission of petitioner was pending consideration before Selection Committee, father of petitioner had approached the Chief Minister, Balochistan who by order dated 9-4-1992 and 6-5-1992 directed admission of petitioner against reserved quota of Doctorschildren. Petitioner feeling aggrieved from order of Selection Committee, rejecting his candidature has filed Constitutional Petition No,299/92 challenging admission of Miss Sadia Butt daughter of Dr. Muhammad Aslam Butt; and Constitutional Petition No,314/92 challenging admission of Rahmatullah son of Dr. Sahibzada Nematullah. The Principal Bolan Medical College, in both these petitions, has filed detailed comments supporting the stand of Selection Committee whereby explanation of petitioner's studying outside the province was disapproved. It was maintained that admission granted to private respondent was valid and proper.
16. Mr. Basharatullah, learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that Article 3 (c) (ix) (xii) provides for special seats allocated to children of Doctors. According to him requirement concerning admission for reserved seats for doctorschildren was specified in Article 14 of the Prospectus (already reproduced above). According to him Article 30 of the prospectus regarding disability on the point of education outside the province of Balochistan was not applicable to special seats reserved for children of doctors.
17. Raja M. Afsar, learned Advocate-General emphatically opposing the contention, drew our attention to Articles 15 and 39 of the Prospectus contending that doctorschildren are also controlled by all conditions specified in the prospectus. On careful perusal of all the provisions of the prospectus for years 1989-90 and 1990-91 we have noticed that selection for the reserved quota of doctorschildren is made, from amongst eligible candidates. Article 39 explicitly envisages that selection from each category of candidates would be made from amongst candidates who fulfil conditions laid down in the prospectus. The requirements for the eligibility of the candidates are contained in Chapter II consisting of Article 27 to Article 34. Therefore we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that restriction prescribed about studying outside the province under Article 30 of the Prospectus mutatis mutandis are attracted to the reserved seats of doctorschildren.
18. Therefore we now proceed to examine whether explanation offered by petitioner about his studying outside the province is at all plausible to grant him exemption. According to petitioner's own showings, he is resident of Gandakha, Tehsil Usta Muhammad. Undisputedly there exists a College in Usta Muhammad, which duly caters for F.Sc. Pre-medical classes. Boarding arrangements are also available in said Institution. Explanation furnished by petitioner suggests that on account of non-availability of College facilities at Dera Murad Jamali, under compelling circumstances, he went to Larkana. Neither learned counsel could satisfy nor is it understandable why petitioner could not be educated at Usta Muhammad, his home town, which obviously was at a lesser distance than Larkana. The explanation of petitioner is apparently non-convincing and unsatisfactory, therefore, in our opinion his candidature was rightly rejected by the Selection Committee. Furthermore it may be seen that Selection Committee is a tribunal of special jurisdiction which on the given material has lawfully exercised discretion vested in it. There does not appear any mis-exercise of authority, glaring illegality or capriciousness in the impugned order of the Selection Committee as such on the principle enunciated in cases (i) Abdur Rehman Bajwa v.
19. Sultan and others (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 522) and (ii) Fateh Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan and others (1989 SCM R 407); the impugned order is unexceptionable.
20. Mr. Basharatullah, learned counsel for petitioner then attempted to argue that respondent Rahmatullah is son of a Professor falling in Category 'Aof Article 14 of the Prospectus. Whereas petitioner was contestant for a seat in Category 'Bof Article 14 of the Prospectus. Therefore according to him his shifting from one category to another category was mala fide action to deprive petitioner of his legitimate right for admission during Session 1990-91. In this behalf it may be observed that Article 16 is self explanatory. It lays down that if due to non-availability of eligible candidates in any category the seat falls vacant, then candidate from other category of doctorschildren shall be accommodated. Since we have observed that candidature of petitioner was rightly rejected on the ground of studying outside the province within the purview of Article 30 of the Prospectus, therefore, seat in Category 'Bhad obviously fallen vacant. Even otherwise petitioner on rejection of his candidature loses locus standi for challenging validity of admission granted to others.
21. Lastly it was contended that Chief Minister has twice issued order for granting admission to petitioner against seats reserved for doctorschildren,. Therefore, Selection Committee and concerned officials ought to have implemented the same. Suffice it to observe that admission of students in the educational institutions is regulated by policy and instructions formulated in the shape of prospectus. No doubt Government can change rules and instructions contained in prospectus from time to time. But under no circumstances existing policy of rules can be violated or deviated from by any executive order of Chief Minister. Therefore in our opinion directions regarding admission of petitioner issued by Chief Minister which are not covered by rules of the prospectus have no legal sanction. Additionally after final approval of list of successful candidates by the Government under Article 49 of Prospectus, previous directions if any would by implication stand superseded. Therefore, contentions raised in this behalf have no substance.
22. Accordingly for the above reasons, we do not find any merits, in the petitions which are consequently dismissed.
23. Parties are left to bear their own costs.