' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This appeal arises from the judgment dated 20-12-1993 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the Constitution petition filed by Miss Shamila Iftikhar/appellant, against the decision of the Selection Committee rejecting her application for admission in the first year M.B.,B.S. Course in Bolan Medical College against a seat reserved for the bona fide residents of District Killa Saifullah, was dismissed.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the appellant who is a daughter of the railway employee namely, Iftikhar Ahmad Kausar, was born on 13-7-1972 at Sibbi, in the Province of Balochistan. After having qualified F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) Examination from the Government College for Women at Quetta, she applied for admission in the first year M.B.,B.S. Course for the academic session of 1991- 92 in Bolan Medical College against a seat reserved for the bona fide residents of District Killa Saifullah on the strength of domicile certificate of her father from the said district. The contesting candidate challenged her claim. The Selection Committee referred the matter for inquiry to the Deputy Commissioner, Killa Saifullah who conducted the inquiry in this regard and reported that the father of the appellant was not physically residing at Killa Saifullah. Although he had purchased some landed property in that District but he had not constructed any house thereon. The Selection Committee gave an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and made thorough probe in the matter and came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the appellant to claim a seat from District Killa Saifullah and rejected her application. This decision was published in the press on 16-9-1993.
3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant tiled a Constitution petition in the High Court of Balochistan challenging the legality of the decision of the Selection Committee which was dismissed on 20-12-1993. On this the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal (No, 79 of 1994) in this Court. Leave was granted on 2-3-1994. The operative part of the order reads as under:-- "It may be noted that the Domicile Certificate of the petitioner's father is still intact. It is also an admitted fact that her father is still in service and due to the exigencies of service he was posted at different places, therefore the learned counsel has contended that it cannot be held that the petitioner has settled permanently at Quetta. Non-construction of the house is not a valid ground for rejecting her application, particularly when it has been admitted that her father owned landed property at Killa Saifullah.
' Leave is granted to consider the above contention?
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on cases Miss Shakila Akhtar Bajwa v. Selection Committee, Medical Colleges, Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others (PLD 1986 Quetta 126) and Miss Sumaeea Zareen v. Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and others (1991 SCM R 2099) to contend that in case of persons in service who are generally posted at different places, the place where they intend to reside permanently after retirement from service would determine the question of their permanent domicile for the purposes of admission in Colleges against seats reserved for the bona fide residents of the District and not the places where they had been posted from time to time during the service. The learned counsel maintained that by the fact of acquiring/owning a piece of land in District Killa Saifullah, the intention of the father of the appellant and the family including the appellant to live permanently there is very much established. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, the question as to whether or not the father of the appellant had constructed a house in that District was irrelevant. He further argued that since the domicile certificate of District Killa Saifullah issued in the name of the father of the appellant remains intact, it could hardly be said that the appellant was not permanent resident of that District.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment.
6.
7. #TBS
8. SCMR
9. #TBE
10. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
We find that the existence of a domicile certificate in favour of the candidate/candidate's father is not a conclusive proof of his/her being bona fide permanent resident of that District and will not deter the Selection Committee from making inquiry by referring the matter to the. Deputy Commissioner of the 'concerned District or from satisfying itself from other sources about the claim of the candidate. Under paragraph 32 of the relevant prospectus, the Selection Committee was quite competent to decide as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the District/Agency of which he/she is claimant of being selected against the seat of that District or not, and the candidate shall be bound to abide by the decision of the Selection Committee. In these circumstances, the mere fact of the appellant's father owning some property which admittedly is a barren land, is not sufficient proof of the intention of the appellant/appellant's father to live permanently in Killa Saifullah after retirement.
7. The Selection Committee took pains to ascertain the place of permanent residence of the appellant. The opportunity of being heard was afforded to her. The High Court has taken into consideration the University Registration Form filled in by the appellant for seeking admission in B.Sc. Wherein she had shown Quetta as her permanent address. The appellant has not denied this fact before us. Admittedly, the appellant was not living in Killa Saifullah. The Selection Committee and the High Court, on the basis of material on record, have decided that the appellant does not belong to the District Killa Saifullah. The conclusion arrived at by the Selection Committee and the High Court does not suffer from non-reading/misreading of material on record and also from error of jurisdiction.
8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant do not make out a case for interference with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.