' TARIQ MAHMOOD, J.---Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for admission to the first year of the M.B., B.S. In Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the session 1999-2000, against one of the two seats allocated for District Barkhan. It may be noted that as per formula specified in the prospectus, the petitioner appeared in a pre-entry test held by the College Authorities, the merit list was prepared in respect of each district and petitioner stood at serial No,4 on the merit list of District Barkhan (Annexure A). Petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee and after its final meeting, it was pleased to submit the recommendations to the Government. List of successful candidates was notified on 3rd March, 2001 and although petitioner's case for admission was considered, rejected by the Selection Committee due to lower merits.
' Further facts relevant to the issue are that on 1st of January, 2001, Government of Balochistan issued a Notification in exercise of its powers conferred by section 6 of the Balochistan Land Revenue Act and abolished district Barkhan, which has been merged in Kohlu district. In the events of the background, the petitioner submitted an application to Chairman, Selection Committee and requested that merit list of the candidates might be prepared on the basis of newly-created districts. Copy of said application was also sent to Principal, Bolan Medical College, Quetta.
However, it appears from Annexure 'D' that his request was not entertained or declined, in that, admissions were granted on the basis of districts, as mentioned in the prospectus.
' By this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Selection Committee rejecting his candidature for admission to the 1st year M.B., B.S. In Bolan Medical College for the session 19992000, on the basis of newly-created district of Kohlu.
' Pre-admission notice was given to official respondents, who have filed parawise comments and took the position that date of submission of application forms was from 4th of October, 2000 to 20th of October, 2000, the merit list was prepared on the basis of twenty six districts as mentioned in the Prospectus and petitioner could not be selected due to lower merits.
' Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Notification, dated 1st January, 2001, was enforced with immediate effect and as by that time result was not declared, therefore, Selection Committee was apprised of this change, but no attention was paid. According to him, such change should have been considered by the Selection Committee and its failure to grant admissions to petitioner due to formation of the new district was illegal. Elaborating further that district Barkhan has come to an end and was merged with district Kohlu, therefore, respondents were under obligation to prepare a new merit list of district Kohlu and to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis whereof. Also, that on merging of district Barkhan with district Kohlu, a valuable Night nas been accrued to the petitioner and he could not be deprived of the same, as admission was to be granted on merits. And that Government has power under para.52 to bring about change in admission policy in view of the merging of district.
' On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that seats were allocated as per provisions of the Prospectus and the Notification was effected prospectively, particularly when the process was completed much before 1st January, 2001 and recommendations were submitted.
' Before considering the question, it would be appropriate to examine various paras. Of the Prospectus:--- "(1) The total number of seats for M.B., B.S. Course during the Academic Sessions 1999-2000 shall be 154.
(2) The break up of Medical seats of Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the session 1999-2000 shall be as under:
(a) District Merits Seats103
4. The District Merit Seats of Bolan Medical College are distributed among the 26 Districts/Agencies of Balochistan on population basis as per report of Census Commissioner of Pakistan. The population figures of Districts/Agencies are " in accordance to the existing boundaries of the District/Agencies. The Allocation of Seats to various District/Agencies is as under:--- S. No.Name of District AgencyPopulationAllocation of Seats
6. Barkhan 62,000 1.42= 2 seats 16.Kohlu 106,000 2.45= 2 seats
7. All seats in the above District/ Agencies are open for competition within each District to the Local/ domicile candidates of the Province of Balochistan and nobody shall be denied admission on the grounds of race, religion, colour or Cast. Competition in each District/Agency shall take place between the candidates of that district/agency.
26. The candidates seeking admission to Bolan Medical College, shall have to produce before the Selection Committee a local certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate of the respective District or a Domicile issued by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate of the District under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (Act II. Of 1951) and the rules made thereunder.
28. A candidate found in possession of two or more local/domicile certificates issued by the District Magistrate of different Districts/ Agencies at the time of applying for admission, shall not be considered for admission against the seats of any of the Districts/Agency of which he/she possess the Local/Domicile Certificate, his/her application shall be rejected.
' The Selection Committee, on the basis of the documents attached with the application form of the candidate as required under paragraph No,37 of the prospectus and or further inquiry through the Deputy Commissioner or other sources, shall be competent to be decided as to whether a candidate actually belone to the district/agency of which he/she is entitled of being selected against the . Seat of that district/ agency or not. The candidate shall be bound to abide by the decision of the Selection Committee.
32. A candidate who has passed F.Sc. Examination (Annual Supplementary) up to the Academic Session 1999-2000 shall only be elieible for admission during the academic session 1999-2000 M.B., B.S./ B.D.S.
39. The selection of candidates for admission to 1st year M.B., B.S. And 1st year B.D.S. Class shall be made by the Selection Committee, appointed by the Government, strictly on merit basis in each category of seats from amongst the applicants according to the conditions laid down in the Prospectus.
45. The Selection of candidates for admission of 1st year M.B., B.S./ B.D.S. Class in B.M.C.---shalll be made by the Selection Committee consisting of the following members.
50. The decision of the Selection Committee shall be submitted to the Government for the final approval, which shall include the dissenting note, if any made by any member or Chairman of the Committee.
52. The Government of Balochistan reserves the right of making any addition, alteration or amendment in the Admission Policy Prospectus and the application form at any time.
' A bare perusal of the above quoted paras. Indicates that admittedly the selection was for the session 1999-2000, the total number of seats for admission has been fixed at 154, out of which 103 are described as district merit seats' are further sub-divided among the 26 Districts/Agencies of Balochistan on population basis as per report of Census Commissioner of Pakistan and it is important to point out at this stage that para.No,4 of the Prospectus specifically says that population figures of Districts/Agencies are in accordance to the existing boundaries of the Districts/Agencies. In the instant case, we are concerned with two seats each allocated to the district Barkhan and Kohlu. Applications for admission were invited by the Selection Committee and last date of receipt of applications was 26th October, 2000. Admittedly interviews were held by the Selection Committee on 19th December, 2000, Selection Committee held its final meeting on 23rd December, 2000 at Quetta and submitted its recommendations as per para.50 of the Prospectus to the Government for its approval and as stated by the learned Assistant Advocate General immediately after the final meeting. It may be noted that as per para.7 of the Prospectus, all seats in the districts/agencies as mentioned in Para.4 of the Prospectus are open for competition within each District. Para.26 requires candidates to produce before the Selection Committee a Local/Domicile Certificate issued by District Magistrate of the respective district (as mentioned in para.4 of the Prospectus). It may further be noted that para.28 provides that a person found in possession of two or more Local/Domicile Certificates issued by District Magistrate of different Districts/Agencies at the time of applying for admission would be ineligible. Under para.30 of the Prospectus, the Selection Committee was competent to see and enquire as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district of which he has produced Local/Domicile Certificate.
Para.32 of the Prospectus also provides that a candidate, who passed F.Sc. Examination up to the Academic Session 1999-2000 was only eligible for admission for the academic session 1999-2000.
Para.39 reads that selection of candidates shall be made by the Selection Committee strictly on merit basis in each category of seats from amongst the applicants according to the conditions laid down in the Prospectus. A Selection Committee was constituted under para.45 of the Prospectus and it was supposed to submit its decision to Government for final approval under para.50. Under para.52 of the Prospectus, Government of Balochistan reserved its right of making any addition, alteration or amendment in the Admission Policy-Prospectus.
It may be pointed out that sub-Article (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution empowers a public authority for making provisions for the advancement of socially or backward class of the citizens. In exercise of such authority, the Government of Balochistan has framed a policy for admission in the Bolan Medical College with a view of advancement and protection of the education to backward class of citizens. This classification is regional classification and seats have been distributed on the basis of population. Clause (4) of Article 22 does not limit powers of public authority to distribute the seats on regional basis or on the basis of population or to control any other type of provision or reservation, which may be made in matter of admission to an educational institution. Apart from the inherent right to amend the Prospectus on general principles, it is expressly stated under para.52 that the provisions incorporated therein are subject to additions, alterations or amendment, as may be considered necessary. It may further be mentioned that the vires of the Prospectus as to the allocation of seats (district-wise) was not challenged before us by the petitioner. However, it has been contended that as boundaries of various districts were changed and some of the districts were abolished, therefore, seats ought to have been allocated on the basis of newly-created districts. Accordingly, the questions for consideration are, whether rights of parties are to be decided according to situation which existed or otherwise, whether any right has been accrued in favour of petitioner due to change hereinbefore mentioned and whether notification, dated 1st January, 2001 has effected the rights of parties created by the Prospectus.
Before proceeding further, we may highlight certain settled principles of law in such matters. The first principle is that, when a law/bye-law is altered or repealed during the pendency of an action, the rights of the parties are decided according to law as it existed when the action was initiated and not the law that existed at the time of the judgment or order. Another principle is that, Court must make every effort not to make redundant any part of statute/bye-law and must, if necessary, stretch language so as to give it some meaning justified by context and object. Also that the Courts have always leaned in favour of saving a legislation, and have placed such construction upon its words as would give reasonable results and .Would avoid artificial anomalous constructions. But the question of applying the principle of interpretation as to reasonable results arises only where there is a case of doubtful significance, or where words of the statute admit of two meanings or present two possible construction. But in case where a statue uses plain words, which are clear and quite unambiguous in their import, there is no room for applying these principles of interpretation, which are merely presumptions in cases of ambiguity. Another cardinal rule of interpretation is that a law should be construed in accordance with the intention expressed in the law itself.
' Applying the above general rule of deciding whether a particular provision is retrospective or not.
It may be seen that notification is silent in that regard and is to be taken as prospective, acting from the time, the provision comes into operation, and therefore, the Notification, dated 1st January, 2000, issued by the Government in exercise of its powers conferred by section 6 of the Balochistan Revenue Act could not operate retrospectively. Secondly, if arguments of learned counsel for petitioner are accepted, it would effect or impair existing rights of private respondents, which are substantive rights. And where existing rights adversely effect, Courts have always declined to give retrospective effect unless compelled and there is nothing in the notification or the Prospectus in that regard. Another important question for consideration is as to how change in boundaries of districts made under section 6 of Land Revenue Act would prevail over para.4 of the prospectus because settled law is that, when there is a conflict between two special provisions, the Court should lean against repeal of earlier provision by implication, and since it is not clear that operation of para.4 of the prospectus has been curtailed by the change made by the Government in the existing boundaries of the districts, therefore, there is an occasion to form another view of the matter. Para.4 of the prospectus is very clear that seats were distributed in accordance to the boundaries, then existed. Court is primarily guided by the provisions on the subject in deciding whether the particular rights indicated by the prospectus are prospective or otherwise. Also that change in boundaries of districts would not effect any legal proceedings or rights/privileges or liabilities. In this particular case, the Prospectus is very clear that the distribution was on the basis of population and in accordance to the existing boundaries of the districts/agencies. The word existing means existed at the time of issuance of Prospectus or inviting applications. It was further made clear in para.7 of the Prospectus, which provides that seats were open for competition amongst the candidates of the districts which existed at the time of issuance of Prospectus or submission of application. It may be noted that in the instant case, proceedings by the Selection Committee were finalized even before the issuance of Notification, as per stand of learned Assistant Advocate-General. We have reproduced various provisions of Prospectus and the language is quite un-ambiguous and leaves no room for more than one interpretation. And after reading various provisions particularly paras.4, 32 and 39 of the Prospectus, we are unable to gather any other intention of the framer of the Prospectus. The Selection Committee is a creation of Prospectus itself (para.45) and under para.39, it was under obligation to decide the selection of candidates strictly on merit basis in each category of seats from amongst the applicants according to the condition laid down in the Prospectus. Also that petitioner could succeed only if he fulfilled the condition laid down in the Prospectus, and therefore, petitioner is also estopped to challenge para.4 of the Prospectus, particularly when the virus thereof have not been challenged.
Accordingly, submission of application by the petitioner to the Selection Committee for preparation of fresh merit list was of no consequence. Although, Government was never approached for necessary averment in the Prospectus, but in any case the petitioner cannot claim a vested right in that regard.
' In view of above, it is clear that seats were to be distributed among the twenty six districts as mentioned in para.4 of the Prospectus. Admittedly, the petitioner belonged to district Barkhan at the time of issuance of Prospectus or inviting application for admission. There is no denial of the fact that he applied for one of the scats reserved for Barkhan and no challenge was thrown, when merit list of district Barkhan was separately issued. He made appearance before the Selection Committee on 19th December, 2000, for admission against one of the seats reserved for district Barkhan. The matter was finalized by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 23rd December, 2000 and subsequent change in boundaries of districts by the Government in exercise of its powers conferred by section 6 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, would have no effect on para.4 or any other para. Of the Prospectus. A vested right was accrued in favour of private respondents at the time of issuance of Prospectus and even at the time of interview or making recommendations by the Selection Committee. The fact that decision was announced by the Government after issuance of Notification, dated 1st January, 2001, would be absolutely of no effect, as it could not take away their rights. The right of 'admission in an institution financed by Government accrued in favour of private respondents being a substantive right could not be deemed to have been lost by subsequent issuance of notification under section 6 of the Land Revenue Act. ' in limine.