1. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Petitioner Inayatullah son of Muhammad Wali passed his Matriculation and F.Sc. (Pre-Engineering) Examinations from the Board o: Intermediate and Secondary Education, Baluchistan, and secured 545 out of 1100 marks, in F.Sc. Examination.
2. Whereas private respondent No. I, passed both these examinations from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad and secured 586 out of 1100 marks in last-mentioned examination.
3. Respondent No. 1, being the Local of District Qilla Saifullah, applied for admission in first year Engineering College, against one of reserved seats of said District, for the Session 1993-94 by Selection Committee rejected his candidature, under clause 2.12 of the Admission Policy-. As such, rejection order was challenged in C.P. No. 157/1995, which was partially allowed on 1st August, 1995.
4. Relevant observations therefrom, are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Accordingly we are inclined to set aside the order of Selection Committee dated 3-4-1995 which, therefore, shall be out of field. However, if petitioner submits application within stipulated period, and place entire material before Selection Committee, they shall scrutinize the same afresh on its own merits according to law and be at liberty to decide question regarding petitioner's entitlement against reserved seats of Qilla Saifullah keeping in view requirements of clause 2.12. Other provisions of Admission Policy. It may be clarified that status of respondent No. 4 shall remain unaffected.
5. Petition disposed of in the above terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
6. It appears that in pursuance of above order, respondent No. 1 submitted fresh application for admission, in Academic Session, 1994-95. The Selection Committee to prove his plea of non- passing Matriculation and F.Sc. Examinations from the Province referred his case to Political Agent, District Qilla Saifullah, who vide report dated 24th September, 1995, opined that he had genuine grounds to study at some other place, outside Baluchistan, due to enmity. On receipt of this report the Selection Committee in its meeting held in October, 1995, recommended for his admission in Engineering Institution to Government of Baluchistan, this he was allowed admission in Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, Karachi.
7. As petitioner had less marks than respondent No.1 therefore, his admission was declined. As such, he had instituted, instant Constitutional petition, with the prayer that, he may be granted admission, in Engineering Institution in place of respondent.
8. We have heard Mr. M. Zafar, Advocate Mr. Amanullah Yasinzai, Advocate and Chaudhry Ejaz Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General, for petitioner, respondent No. l and official respondents, respectively.
9. As petitioner claims admission against the seat, on which, respondent No.1 has been admitted in Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, therefore, petitioner's counsel was called upon to explain whether without impleading said Institution as party, relief as has been prayed for can be granted to petitioner.
10. Mr. M. War, learned counsel for petitioner relying on Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C., stated that Court is competent to implead Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, as party in the interest of justice. Alternatively his contention was that if writ is issued, it will.Be the duty of official respondents to implement the order.
11. Chaudhry Ejaz Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General, contended that petition may not be found competent, in absence of necessary party i.e. Institution where respondent No. l had been admitted, therefore, in view of unreported judgment-of this Court in C.P. No. 188/82, no relief can be given to petitioner.
12. We have given our anxious thought to this aspect of the case. It may be seen that Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, where respondent No. 1, had already been admitted under the directions of Provincial Government, against one of he reserved seats, is not a Functionary subordinate to the Education Department of the Province of Baluchistan. No sooner, a candidate is admitted in an Educational Institution, situated outside the Province, the Provincial Government had no control over it. The Educational affairs of the student necessarily shall be governed by the Prospectus of that Institution, which undoubtly requires that a student must attend a particular number of lectures to make himself eligible to take examination and also to fulfil other requirements being a bona fide and regular student of such Institution. Although under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C., the Court siezed with the matter, is competent to delete or add the name of party in proceedings before it in the interest of justice, but such powers are to be exercised keeping in view parameters laid down by the law and Court cannot fill up lacunas to advance the case of one of the party, at the cost of others. At this stage, reference to concluding para. From unreported judgment, relied upon by Chaudhry Ejaz Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General with reference to non-impleading necessary parties would be relevant, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "We disapprove the conduct of the Selection Committee, who has ignored the judgment of this Court. We declare that the petitioner was entitled to the seat and respondent No.4 was not entitled to get a seat from Kachhi District, and he was wrongfully nominated, but further relief that the petitioner should be nominated in place of the respondent No.4 cannot be granted as the National College of Engineering has not been made a party to the present petition and we do not know if the prospectus of this institution allows the petitioner to be admitted at this belated stage."
13. Now turning towards merits of case, we are persuaded to hold that Selection Committee being a fact-finding body; considered the plea of respondent No. 1, for not passing his matriculation and F.Sc. (Pre-Engineering) Examinations under para. 2.12 of the Policy framed by the Government of Baluchistan for admission in Engineering College and petitioner has failed to show that findings are not based on evidence or it being arbitrary, perverse etc. Deserve interference, therefore, no case for issuing writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has been made out.
14. As a consequence of above discussion, petition being bad for non---joinder of necessary party, as well as on merits has no force, thus is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.