1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--In this Constitutional petition, Miss Zubia Bugti daughter of Dr. Noor Muhammad Bugti, has prayed that order of Selection Committee for admission in Bolan Medical College, be set aside and she be admitted against the seat reserved for Doctors' children falling in category 'B' of para.14 of the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, in 1st year M.B.,B.S. Class of Bolan Medical College, in the Session of 1995-96, in place of respondent Fazlur Rehman sort of Dr. Amir Muhammad Khan. It would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow impugned order, passed by Selection Committee:-- "Application of Miss Zubia Bugti daughter of Dr. Noor Muhammad Bugti for considering her agaii st the seat reserved for Doctors Children.--Miss Zubia Bugti had applied for a seat reserved for the candidates from Dera Bugti Agency. She had also applied for a seat reserved for the sons/daughters of Doctors serving in Balochistan (Cat-B Prospectus, para. No,14). She submitted an application on 3-7-1996 to the Chairman, Selection Committee stating that she wanted to surrender her candidature for a seat reserved for candidates of Dera Bugti Agency and opt for the seat reserved for Doctors' children.
2. ' This application was made when the candidate came to know from the merit list that in case she surrendered her seat from Dera Bugti Agency and opted for a seat of Doctors' children, her cousin namely Miss Zeenat Bugti could have a chance for being selected against a girls' seat of Dera Bugti Agency.
3. ' The Selection Committee considered request of the applicant and came to conclusion that the option of the candidate at the belated stage was with the mala fide intention. In case she did not want to contest for seat from Dera Bugti Agency, she should not have applied for that seat.
4. Therefore, the Selection Committee did not entertain her request.
5. ' Besides the Selection Committee has rejected the application of the above candidate for the reason that neither she nor her father are the permanent residents of Balochistan. Therefore, they have no right to claim a seat reserved for Doctors' children of Balochistan."
6. ' Precisely the facts are that petitioner passed her matriculation examination from Beacon House Public School, Quetta. Thereafter she qualified her F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) Examination from.
7. Government College, Dera Bugti and obtained 757 out of 1100 marks. Since her father is Doctor in Provincial Health Services, therefore, she applied for admission in First Year M.B.,B.S. Class against the seat reserved for Doctors children, falling under Category 'B' of paragraph 14 of the Prospectus.
8. Simultaneously she also applied for admission, by submitting separate application against the general seats reserved for the students of Dera Bugti Agency in Bolan Medical College, for the academic session of 1995-96. During interview, candidature of petitioner and her cousin Miss Zeenat Bano (petitioner in C.P. No,283 of 1996) was objected to by the rival candidates on assertions that they do not actually belong to Dera Bugti Agency, as they have shifted to the Province of Sindh. On this Selection Committee, within the perview of paragraph 32 of the Prospectus directed the Political Agent, Dera Bugti Agency to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly report dated 7th July, 1996, was submitted before the Selection Committee by Political Agent, in which, it was opined that both the candidates are not permanent residents of Dera Bugti Agency. It is important to note that before final selection, petitioner submitted an application to the Selection Committee on 2nd July, 1996, praying that her application may be considered against the seat reserved for Doctors' children, as provided in Category 'B' of paragraph 14 of the Prospectus. But despite her request, vide impugned order, her candidature has- been rejected, against the general reserved seats of Dera Bugti Agency, as well as against the seat reserved for Doctors' children.
9. ' As far as private respondent Fazlur Rehman is concerned, he is son of a Doctor and belongs to District Pishin, therefore, he also applied for admission against the same seat and his application has been accepted.
10. ' Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner argued that Selection Committee erred in law, in holding that petitioner does not belong to Dera Bugti Agency as well as to Province of Balochistan, to qualify herself for admission, both against general reserved seats of Dera Bugti Agency and seat reserved for Doctors' children. According to him, admittedly petitioner's father is in Provincial Health Services of Balochistan and is serving as a Doctor since 1973. He also obtained admission against the reserved seats of Province of Balochistan in Dow Medical College, being local of Dera Bugti Agency. Learned counsel contended that for obtaining admission against the reserved seat of Doctors' children it is not obligatory upon the candidate to establish that he belongs to a particular District, because such seats are to be distributed amongst the children of Doctors on Provincial basis. Therefore, Selection Committee had no jurisdiction in such-like cases to conduct probe as required under paragraph 32 of the Prospectus.
11. ' Raja M. Afsar, learned counsel for the private respondent, contended that unless connection is not established by a candidate applying for admission against the seat reserved for Doctors' children, that he/she actually belongs to a particular District/Agency, he/she cannot be deemed to be qualified to compete for the said reserved seat on Provincial basis. According to learned counsel, although under paragraph 14 of the Prospectus, the Selection Committee has not been empowered to conduct an enquiry, as it has bden contemplated under paragraph 32 of the Prospectus, to determine, whether a candidate actually belongs to a particular District/Agency, from where he has applied for admission, but if this para. i,e, 14 is read with paragraph 37 of the Prospectus and with a view to harmonize all provisions of Prospectus, no other conclusion can be drawn except that candidate must prove that he belongs to a particular District/Agency. He also added that writ jurisdiction can be invoked where a case of no jurisdiction has been made out. In the instant case the Selection Committee has jurisdiction to decide the matter that petitioner initially applied for admission against general seats but later on with mala fide intentions she withdrew her candidature against the general reserved seats of Dera Bugti and applied for admission against the seat, reserved for Doctors' children, therefore, her application has been rightly rejected on both the scores. Reference in this behalf, was placed by him on 1975 SCMR 123, PLD 1981 Karachi 620 and 1981 CLC 694. Lastly he contended that in writ jurisdiction, this Court can declare that petitioner is eligible for admission, if contentions raised on her behalf are accepted, but while declaring so, replacement of private respondent cannot be directed as it has been held in PLD 1981 SC 335.
12. ' Mr. M.S. Rukhshani, learned counsel for Selection Committee and Principal, Bolan Medical College, adopted the arguments of Raja M. Afsar, Advocate.
13. ' Choudhry Ejaz Yousaf, learned Advocate-General, did not support the impugned order, as according to him, Doctor Noor Muhammad Bugti, father of petitioner, is admittedly in Provincial Health Services since 1973, therefore, notwithstanding decision given by the Selection Committee that he or his daughter i,e, petitioner does not belong to Dera Bugti Agency, still against the reserved seat of Doctors' children, petitioner was entitled for admission, because she has more marks than private respondent. He also contended that there are no hard and fast rules, provided by Prospectus for a candidate not to withdraw his/her candidature, if application for admission has been made against more than one categories of reserved seats i,e,, seat reserved for Doctors' children or seats reserved for a particular District/Agency. In this behalf he made reference to 1995 SCMR 711 and 1996 SCMR 218.
14. ' We have heard the parties' counsel and also examined the record of case, so made available.
15. ' In view of paragraph 15 of the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, there is no bar for the children of Doctors to apply simultaneously against the general reserved seats of a particular District/Agency, to which they belong. As after submission of application dated 2-7-1996, petitioner prayed that her candidature be only considered against the seat reserved for the children of Doctors falling under Category 'B' of paragraph 14 of the Prospectus, therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same, hereinbelow:-- "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 doctors who are local/Domicile of Balochistan or possess valid permanent residence certificate of Balochistan they will also be governed by para.No,29 and their selection will be effected according to the following three categories.
16. ' CATEGORY-A:..........
17. ' CATEGORY-B: Children of doctors serving in the Provincial Health Department with at least ten years' service other than those mentioned in Category 'A' above. The children of retired and deceased doctors shall also be eligible for the seat provided that the deceased doctor had at least ten years' service at his credit.. ... One seat."
18. A perusal of above para. Suggests that for children of Doctors, who are local/Domicile of Balochistan or possess valid permanent residence certificate of Balochistan. It is not necessary for them to establish that he/she actually belong to a particular District/Agency, because in this para., not only children of Doctors, who are local/Domicile of Balochistan, but even those who have valid permanent Residence Certificate of Balochistan, can also apply for admission. However, it remains their obligation to prove that they belong to the Province of Balochistan, because the seats reserved for the Doctors' children are to be distributed on Provincial basis. It may be noted that for whole of Balochistan, one seat is reserved for Doctors' children falling within Category 'B'. It is golden principle of interpretation of statute that a particular provision is to be read in its ordinary and plain meaning, without supplying any omission. Evidently under paragraph 14 of the Prospectus, the Selection Committee has not been empowered to conduct an enquiry, to the effect, whether a candidate i,e, children of Doctors, actually belong to a particular District/Agency, therefore, impliedly paragraph 32 cannot be read in paragraph 14 of the Prospectus. As such, the argument put forth in this behalf by Raja M. Afsar, learned counsel, has no force.
19. ' As it has been observed hereinabove that children of Doctors under paragraph 14 of the Prospectus are eligible to compete with other candidates on merits against the seats reserved for their respective Districts/Agencies, therefore, they are also competent to withdraw application out of both the categories before the Selection Committee. In this behalf, reference to a case reported in 1995 SCMR 711 (Hamza Khan v. Province of Balochistan through Secretary Education) can be made. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that if there is a tie between students having residence in Rural and Urban areas and the student who has applied for admission against the reserved seat of Rural area has not been found eligible for admission, he can be considered on open merit seats, even if he has not applied for admission against that category of reserved seat.
20. Similarly in another case reported in 1996 SCMR 777 (Shazia Irim v. Government of Balochistan), it has been held that candidates having been found resident of urban area of city and her application for admission against the rural seat having been rejected, on that account, she can be considered against the urban seat, if she otherwise qualify for admission on merits against the seats reserved for urban area and such candidate could not be denied admission, merely on the ground that she had not applied for admission against the reserved seat for urban area, for there was nothing in the Prospectus of College to show that an applicant who had applied for admission against the rural seat could not be considered against the urban seat, if she/he was otherwise qualified for admission on merits against the seat. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that such hypertechnicalities militate against the spirit of Admission Policy in Educational Institutions.
21. ' Following this principle, we are also inclined to hold that if petitioner after having applied for admission against the reserved seats of Girls for Dera Bugti Agency, has withdrawn her candidature by submitting an application, it would not mean that she has done it with mala fide intentions.
22. As learned Advocate-General had categorically stated at bar that petitioner's father is serving in Provincial Health Services of Balochistan, as a Doctor, since 1973, therefore petitioner being his daughter was eligible against the seat reserved for Doctors' children falling under Category 'B' of paragraph 14 of the Prospectus. As such, in our opinion, the Selection Committee had passed impugned order, rejecting her candidature without jurisdiction, Thus, judgments cited by Raja M.Afsar, learned counsel for private respondent, in our humble opinion, or of no help to him.
23. ' It was also contended by learned counsel for private respondent that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1989 SCMR 407, it is the prerogative of the Selection Committee to satisfy itself, whether the candidate is eligible for admission or not? Therefore, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot replace such conclusion of Selection Committee, with its opinion.
24. As far as the principle discussed in judgment is concerned, there is no cavil with it, but in the matters, where Selection Committee had acted without jurisdiction and passed order, which is perverse, contrary to prospectus, which confers jurisdiction upon it to make selection of candidate and decision arrived at appears to be erroneous, based on illegal interpretation of its various provisions, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is competent to interfere in such orders.
25. ' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, impugned order passed by Selection Committee is held to have been passed without jurisdiction and lawful authority and it is declared that petitioner is eligible for admission in First Year M.B.,B.S. Class of Bolan Medical College, for the session of 1995-96, against the seat, reserved for Doctors' children, falling under Category 'B' of paragraph 14 of the Prospectus.