AJMAL MIAN, J.--By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above to appeals which have been filed with the leave of this Court against a common judgment dated 20-4-1994 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan passed in Constitution Petitions Nos.505 and 507 of 1993, filed by the present appellant against the rejection of her applications for admission in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta (i.e. Respondent No.3), hereinafter referred to as the College, for the academic sessions 1991-92- and 1992-93, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant's father joined WAPDA in or about 1969. He was transferred to Quetta in 1976 and since then he has been posted at Quetta and residing in a house allotted to him by WAPDA in WAPDA Colony, which is situated in rural area of Quetta. The appellant was born at Lahore on 27-6-1972. Upon transfer of her father she also came to Quetta with other members of the family. She got her education in Quetta up to F.Sc. (Pre--Medical). She cleared her F.Sc. (Pre- Medical) in First Division in 1991. It appears that the appellant's father obtained a Domicile Certificate of Quetta on 28-1-1992. The appellant applied to the College for admission in the first Year M.B.,B.S. For the above to academic sessions against reserved seats for rural areas of Quetta. It seems that on 26-6-1993, the appellant appeared before the Selection Committee of the College for interview, she was asked to appear before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, Thereupon, she along with her father appeared before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, on 29-6-1993 with all the relevant documents to show that she was a bona fide resident of rural area of Quetta. However, it seems that the District Magistrate, Quetta, (i.e. Respondent No.4) by his order dated 21-7-1993, cancelled the Domicile Certificate granted to the appellant's father on 28-1-1992. Against the above order, the appellant and her father filed Constitution Petition No.359 of 1993 in the High Court of Baluchistan, which was allowed by a Division Bench through a judgment dated 18-8-1993 on a number of grounds including that the appellant and her father were not heard and that the District Magistrate, Quetta, was himself a member of the Selection Committee etc.
3. It appears that on 16-9-1993 the names of the selected candidates for admission for the aforesaid to academic sessions in the College were published in the newspapers, but the appellant's result was withheld. After that the Selection Committee met on 23-10-1993 under the Chairmanship of the Chairman, Baluchistan Public Service Commission, and rejected the appellant's application for admission for the following reasons:- "The case of the candidate was discussed in the light of the Judgment of the High Court, Baluchistan wherein the earlier decision of her rejection. By the Selection Committee was set aside.
However, the Selection Committee was of the opinion that the candidate's father Mr. Abdul Majeed was transferred from Punjab to Baluchistan in WAPDA being . a Federal Organization, and was residing presently in Government Quarter No.C-12 Thermal Power Station Colony, Quetta. He was however not in possession of any home/landed property in Quetta Rural Area. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Quetta after a thorough Inquiry informed the Selection Committee that the Home Address of Mr. Abdul Majeed on the Ist page of his service book was that of Faisalabad Punjab. In spite of the fact that he was issued Domicile certificate by Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, he and his children could not be considered as bona fide residents of Quetta (Rural) due to non- possession of any home/landed property in Quetta (Rural). The Selection Committee, therefore, unanimously rejected the application of Miss Farhat Majeed d/o Abdul Majeed under paragraph No. 32 of the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the Academic Session, 1991-92 as the candidate and her father did not actually belong to Quetta (Rural)."
Against the above rejection, the appellant filed the aforementioned Constitution Petition which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan as stated above. Against the above judgment, the appellant filed to petitions for leave to appeal, which were granted to examine the question, whether the Selection Committee was competent to reject the candidature of the appellant for the reasons, firstly, that the home address of her father on the first page of his service book was written as Faisalabad (Punjab), and secondly, that they are not owners in possession of any landed property in Quetta (Rural). The appellant was also allowed provisional admission as prayed for by her.
4. In support of the above appeals Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed. Learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellant, has vehemently contended that since it was an admitted position that the appellant was residing with her parents in WAPDA Colony, Quetta, which is situated within the rural area of Quetta, the Selection Committee was not justified in declining the appellant's aforesaid application for admission in the College in one of the above to academic sessions particularly when on merits she was much above the other candidates who applied against the aforementioned reserved seats. His further submission is that the finding of the Selection Committee that the appellant's father (lid not own any landed property in the rural area of Quetta, is factually in correct. To reinforce the above submission he has invited our attention to the allotment Letter No. WECHS/QTA/1929, dated 26-5-1991, whereby the appellant's father was allotted a residential plot bearing No.C-DA in the WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Quetta, by the said Society.
On the other hand, Mr. Tariq Mehmood and Mr. M. Riaz Ahmed have strongly urged that the Selection Committee was justified in rejecting the appellant's application for admission as she failed to produce any reliable evidence to indicate that she was bona fide resident of rural area of Quetta. Mr. Tariq Mehmood, learned counsel for the private respondent, has pointed out that the High Court had summoned the original application for admission filed by the appellant, which did not contain the aforesaid alleged allotment letter in respect of the above plot. He has also submitted that simpliciter aforementioned letter does not show that the land which has been allotted by the above Society to the appellant's father is situated within the rural area of Quetta.
5. Before dealing with the above contentions, it may be pertinent to reproduce paragraph 32 of the Prospectus for the above to academic sessions issued by the College, which provides as under:-- "32. The Selection Committee, on the basis of the documents attached with the application form of the candidate as required under Paragraph 35 of the prospectus and or further inquiry through the Deputy Commissioner or other sources, shall be competent to decide as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district agency of which he/she is entitled of being selected against the seats of that district/agency or not. The candidate shall be bound to abide by the decision of the Selection Committee. "
A perusal of aforequoted paragraph indicates that the Selection Committee is required to decide the application form submitted by a candidate in terms of paragraph 35 and annexed with the relevant documents. The Selection Committee is competent to decide, as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district/agency of which he/she is entitled of being selected against the seats of that district/agency or not. Any decision made by the Selection Committee is binding on the candidate.
6. We are unable to subscribe to the above submission of Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed that simpliciter the fact that appellant is residing with her parents in WAPDA Colony, which is situated in rural area of Quetta, is sufficient to prove that she was eligible for admission against aforesaid reserved seats.
The object of reserved seats for rural areas seems to be that the policy-makers want to give admissions to the bona fide residents of the reserved areas who may not be able to compete with other candidates on merit because of their backwardness and/or lack of proper educational facilities. In our view, in order to prove that a candidate is a bona fide resident of a particular reserved area, he or she should produce reliable evidence to support that he or she's parents have on their own volition decided to reside permanently in that particular reserved area. This can be shown by producing documents that they have constructed their own house in that reserved area.
In our view, the occupation of a house allotted by the employer to the father of a candidate near the place of work is not relevant for the purpose of determining the above factum. In fact it has no nexus with the object for which the relevant rule has been framed.
7. It is an admitted position that the appellant had not annexed with her application for admission a copy of the above alleged allotment letter in respect of the aforesaid plot to her father. In this view of the matter, the above finding recorded by the Selection Committee reproduced hereinabove in para. 3 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. A copy of the above allotment letter was not even produced before the High Court. Additionally, the copy of the aforesaid allotment letter per se does not indicate that the allotted plot is situated within the rural area of Quetta. We are, therefore, at this stage not inclined to take into consideration the same. The High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the above finding of fact recorded by the Selection Committee in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeals have no merits. They are, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
8. However, before parting with the above discussion we may observe that the appellant has already completed her four years in M.B.,B.S. And, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, she is in the final year of M.B.,B.S.. In view of the above factual background, no purpose will be served to dislodge the appellant at this belated stage which will not only cause irreparable loss to the appellant but would also cause loss to the public exchequer, as the Government has contributed substantial amount towards the appellant's education as the fees charged from the College students are not compatible with the actual expenses incurred on, their education. We would, therefore, observe that respondents Nos.2 and 3 would sympathetically consider the appellant's case for not dislodging her from the college.