AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 2-12- 1993 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan passed in Constitution Petition No.436 of 1993, filed by the appellant against the refusal of the Selection Committee for Bolan Medical College (i.e. Respondent No.2), hereinafter referred to as the Selection Committee, to grant admission to the appellant in the First Year M.B.,B.S. In the Bolan Medical College, Quetta, hereinafter referred to as the College, for the academic session 1991-92, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant claims to be a local of Jafarabad district. He got his education up to 8th class, when he was about I 1 years old, in his village Goth Haji Abdul Sattar.
After that his parents got him admitted in the Public School, Hyderabad, as a Boarder to receive better education. He passed his Matriculation and then F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) Examination from the above school. After 'that he obtained a Local Certificate on 6-2-1993 from District Magistrate, Jaffarabad. The appellant applied against the reserved seats in the college but his application was rejected by the Selection Committee on the ground that he did not acquire the requisite education in the Province of Baluchistan. Thereupon, he filed aforesaid Constitution Petition, which was dismissed through the above judgment dated 2-12-1993; against which the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider, whether the Selection Committee was justified to reject the appellant's application for admission on the ground found favour with it, whether the Selection Committee misread the record by holding that the appellant had stated that he was Federal Government nominee in the above Public School, and whether the other candidates who also got their education in the aforesaid Public School were granted admission in the College in 1989.
3. In support of the above appeal Mr. S.A.M. Quardri, learned Advocate---on-Record appearing for the appellant, has contended, firstly, that at no point of the the appellant stated before the Selection Committee that he was a Federal Government nominee in the Public School, Hyderabad.
His second submission is that for the academic session 1989-90, the same learned Judges of the Division Bench allowed Constitution Petition No.349 of 1992 filed by one Ghulam Murtaza son of Haji Muhammad Ali Khoso through a judgment dated 2-11-1992, though the above petitioner also got his education from 4th Class in the Public School, Hyderabad.
On the other hand, Messrs M.K.N. Kohli, learned Advocate-on-Record for respondents Nos. l and 2, and M. Riaz Ahmed, learned Advocate-on-Record for respondent No.3, have urged that simpliciter the factum that the appellant's parents got him admitted in the above Public School for receiving better education, would not be a cogent reason for dispensing with the requirement of Paragraph 29 of the Prospectus of the college for the relevant academic session. Their further submission is that in fact before the Selection Committee, the appellant's stand was that he was nominated by the Federal Government in the Public School, Hyderabad, but before the High Court, he changed the stand, namely, that his parents wanted to provide him better education.
4. In our view, it is not necessary to enter into the above second factual controversy, namely, as to whether the appellant has stated before the Selection Committee that he was a nominee of the Federal Government as observed by the Selection Committee in its decision rejecting the appellant's candidature. The basic question which requires consideration is, as to whether the reason which was urged by the appellant before the High Court and before us, namely, that his parents wanted to provide him better education, is a cogent reason in terms of Paragraph 29 of the Prospectus of the College.
5. It will be advantageous to reproduce above Paragraph 29 of the 'Prospectus, which reads as under:-- "29. The candidate must have passed Matriculation and Intermediate Examination from Baluchistan unless the candidate could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reasons for not studying in Baluchistan for claiming exemption from this condition."
A perusal of the above quoted Paragraph shows that it requires that the candidate must have passed Matriculation and Intermediate Examination from Baluchistan' unless the candidate could satisfy the Selection Committee with cogent reason for not studying in Baluchistan for claiming exemption from this condition.
6. The object of providing above condition seems to be that the candidates competing inter se should have same educational background and secondly, this will also be an indicator as to whether a particular candidate and/or his parents are bona fide domicile/residents of Baluchistan area. Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for respondents Nos. l and 2, has invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Manzoor Ahmad v. Government of Baluchistan through Secretary Department of Education, Quetta and 4 others (1995 SCM R 221), in which the ground of convenience was rejected. The relevant portion of the above judgment reads as follows:-- "3. The above observations of the High Court get support from the Deputy Commissioner, Jaffarabad's letter dated 24th September, 1991 (at page 43 of the paper Book) addressed to Mir Jan Muhammad Jamali, Minister for S & GAD, Baluchistan, Quetta with reference to his telephonic conversation, dated 23rd September, 1991, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-- 'It has been reported that Mr. Manzoor Ahmad has no enmity in this area and that he studied in Shahdad Kot (Sind) for the sake of convenience only. Shahdad Kot is at a distance of 15 k.m. From his place of residence while Usta Muhammad is situated at 40 k.m. Distance from his place of residence. It is true that he had better transport facilities available for Shahdad Kot as compared to those for Usta Muhammad. As such it was convenient for him to go to Shahdad Kot and come back daily to his residence. He studied up to Middle in Goth Shahan Palal which is his native place, - therefore, he passed his Matric and F.Sc. Examination from Shahdad Kot (Sind).
4. Even if we were to accept the above contention of Mr. Mehta K.N. Kohli that the Selection Committee has rejected the appellant's application on a ground which was not pleaded by the appellant, it would not affect the result of the case as the ground urged by the appellant in the above quoted para. No.3 of the memo of Constitution Petition is not a ground which can be treated as a reason beyond the control of the appellant in terms of above clause 2.12 of the Admission Policy as the appellant got his education for Matriculation and Intermediate in Shahadad Kot as it was more convenient place for him than Usta Muhammad in Baluchistan. "
7. The above quoted extract from the aforesaid report indicates that in order to bring a case within the ambit of a cogent reason, the grounds should be of such a nature which may compel the parents of the candidate concerned to get him/her educated for Matriculation or F.Sc. Outside the Province of Baluchistan. Any ground which could have been avoided cannot be treated as a cogent reason. The ground of getting better education, in our view, is a ground which could have been avoided. As a matter of fact, this runs counter to the object for which the above paragraph 29 has been incorporated in the Prospectus, namely, that the candidates who compete inter se should have same educational background.
8. Reverting to Mr. Quadri's submission that the same learned Judges of the Division Bench in an earlier case, namely, Constitution Petition No.349 of 1992 took a contrary view, it will suffice to quote hereinbelow para. 5 of the judgment, wherein the learned Judges have dilated upon the above is under: Learned counsel for petitioner referred to a judgment of this Court passed in Civil Petition No.349 of 1992 (Ghulam Murtaza v. The Province of Baluchistan). Since a serious factual controversy has arisen in this case, therefore. The principles laid down in the said Judgment namely that if a candidate on account of compelling circumstances has received education outside the Province, it would be sufficient to constitute a cogent reason in his favour of claiming the benefit to the exception as is contemplated in paragraph-29 of the Prospectus.
In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of petitioner, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, as have been noted above, thus the petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.--- Since the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary, the High Court could have declined to press into service the above jurisdiction for the reason recorded in aforequoted para. 5 of its judgment.
9. In our view, the above appeal has no merits. The same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Even otherwise, more than four years have elapsed since, the rejection of the appellant's application form, he was not granted provisional admission. He must have, therefore, got himself admitted in some other profession. The aforesaid appeal, even otherwise, has lost its efficacy.