2012 M L D 1751
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Ghulam Mustafa M engal, JJ
ABDUL HAQ ---Petitioner
Versus
SELECTION COMMITTEE BOLAN MEDICAL COLLEGE through Chairman and 3
others ----Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.667 of 2011, decided on 25th July, 2012.
Bolan Medical College, Quetta Prospectus, 2011 -2012 ---
----Rr. 41 & 43 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 ---Constitutional petition ---Educational
Institution ---Admission in First Year of MBBS Class for Academic Session 2011 -2012
against a seat reserved for District Kalat ---Petitioner at time of submitt ing Admission Form
was holding Local Certificate from District Kalat, while respondent was holding Local
Certificates from two different Districts i.e. Quetta and Kalat ---Non-disclosure of factum of
holding such dual Certificates by respondent before Selec tion Committee ---Granting of
admission in College to respondent against such seat by Selection Committee ---Validity ---
Respondent's name was mentioned in Local Certificate granted to his father from District
Quetta ---Respondent had subsequently cancelled hi s Local Certificate from District Quetta,
but while applying against such seat, he had relied upon only Local Certificate issued to him
from District Kalat despite having duel Local Certificates and concealing such factum from
Selection Committee ---Provisi ons of R. 41 of Prospectus for Session, 2011 -2012 strictly
prohibited admission to a candidate holding two certificates at time of applying for admission
in College ---Admission obtained by a candidate on basis of false/incorrect
documents/information could be cancelled later on under R. 43 of the Prospectus ---Object of
R. 43 of the Prospectus not being only to penalize those having deceived Selection
Committee, but to set an example for those applying for such noble profession on basis of
false/incorrect in formation or document ---Provisions of Rr. 41 & 43 of the Prospectus being
mandatory in nature and object thereof would be to protect rights of candidates of concerned
District and ensure fair play ---Principal of College ought to have cancelled admission o f
respondent after coming to know about factum of his having dual certificates ---High Court
declared admission of respondent as illegal and void and cancelled same while directed
Principal to place petitioner's case before Selection Committee to consider h is admission
against such reserved seat strictly in accordance with law and Prospectus.
Kamran Murtaza, Rizwan Ejaz and Najam -ud-Din Mengal for Petitioners.
Shai Haq Baloch, Assistant for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Baz Muhammad Kakar for Respondent No.4.
Date of hearing: 21st June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J. ---Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the
respondent No.4 namely, Kaleemullah applied for the reserved seat meant for District Kalat
in Bolan Medical College (BMC) Quetta, for the Academic Session 2010 -2011. The
respondent No.4 submitted his admission Form accompanied by a local certificate duly
issued to him by the office of the Executive District Officer (Revenue) District Kalat,
showing that he is a local of District Kalat. The petitioner objected to the candidature of the
respondent No.4 on the ground that he does not belong to district Kalat, rather he belongs to
District Quetta. It is alleged that the respondent No.4, having two Local Certificates from two
different Districts therefore, he is not entitled for the admission in BMC. The respondent
No.4 was granted admission in 1st Year MBBS Class for the Academic Session 2010 -11 in
BMC, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent No.4 was not entitled to
be selected against the seat reserved for District Kalat in BMC as he does not belongs to said
District. According to him, the admission granted to the respondent No.4 by the official
respondents which amounts to misuse of authority, as such, committed an illegality and
irregularity, therefore, it requires to be cancelled.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 opposed the
contention and stated that the respondent No.4 is actually a local of District Kalat, therefore,
he has all the rights to apply for the seat. The learned counsel though admits the facts that a
Local Certificate was duly issued to his father from District Quetta, but he stated t hat since
the respondent No.4 and his father were residing at Quetta for a long period, therefore, they
obtained their certificates from Quetta, which have now been cancelled. According to him,
the admission granted to the respondent No.4 is just and prope r.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 stated that whatever information
given to the Selection Committee by the respondent No.4 was scrutinized and after
satisfaction, he was granted admission. He stated that the Committee was not awar e about the
dual Local Certificates in possession of the respondent No.4 otherwise, the admission could
not have been granted. The learned Assistant Advocate General stated that the Local
Certificate issued to the respondent No.4 has already been cancelled by the Deputy
Commissioner Kalat, accordingly, therefore, he is not entitled to hold the seat reserved for the
said District.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is an
admitted fact that the .father of th e respondent No.4 was granted Local Certificate from
District Quetta, wherein the name of the respondent No.4 is mentioned, however, the
respondent No.4 and his father succeeded in obtaining certificates from District Kalat as well.
Though the earlier cert ificate granted to the respondent No.4 from Quetta was cancelled by
means of order dated 8th March 2011, but it is a fact that at the time of applying for a seat in
BMC against the reserved seat for District Kalat, the respondent No.4 was holding dual Loca l
Certificates. He did not disclose such fact before the Selection Committee and only relied
upon the Local Certificate issued to him from District Kalat.
Rule 41 of the Prospectus 2010 -11 reads as under: --
"A candidate or his/her father/mother (as the case may be), if found in possession of
two local/domicile certificates during the course of admission process, shall not be
considered for admission against any seat. Such cases can only be considered if the
parents or the candidates submit an affidavit that one of the Local/ Domicile
Certificates had been cancelled before the date of application for admission. In case
the candidate fails to mention or submit the affidavit, he/she shall not be considered
for admission. The Selection Committee reserves the right of debarring such
candidates for a period not exceeding 3 academic sessions."
Similarly, Rule 43 of the Prospectus is also relevant, which is reproduced herein -below:
"If at any stage, it is proved that any candidate has been admitted on the bas is of
false/incorrect documents or information, his/her admission shall be cancelled and all
fees paid shall be forfeited immediately by the Principal, and the candidate concerned
shall be debarred from admission in the college for three academic sessions. "
6. The respondent No.4 at the time of submission of application for admission was
holding two Local Certificates but he did not disclose this fact, therefore, his application was
accepted. Rule 41 of the Prospectus prohibits a candidate from getting an admission in the
College, if he/she has two certificates at the time of admission. Rule 43 of the Prospectus
provides that if at any stage, it is proved that the candidate has been admitted on the basis of
false/incorrect documents or information, his/her admission shall be cancelled. This Clause of
the Prospectus is punitive in nature as well, and to get realize those, who wilfully deceives the
Selection Committee. Its implementation is not only to correct the fraud committed, but also
to set an example for those, applying for such a noble profession on the basis of false or
incorrect document or statement. Both the clauses are mandatory in nature and the purpose
behind these clauses is to protect the right of the candidates of the concerned District and to
ensure the fair play. The rule is meant as a precautionary measures, to stop those having dual
local/domicile certificates.
7. The respondent No.4 at the time of admission, concealed the fact of having dual
certificates from District Quetta and Distr ict Kalat, therefore, the Principal BMC, on coming
to know about this fact, ought to have cancelled his admission, but has failed to act
accordingly. This Court while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1 973, declare the admission of the respondent No.4 as void and
illegal, consequently, the same stands cancelled in the light of Clause 43 of the Prospectus
and the Principal is directed to act accordingly. As regards the request of the petitioner for his
adjustment against the vacant seat from District Kalat is concerned, his case is directed to be
placed before the Selection Committee BMC for consideration, strictly in accordance with
law and the Prospectus of the year 2010 -11, accordingly.
Thus, in view of the above, the petition is partly accepted.
SAK/72/Q Petition partly accepted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.