MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR through VICE-CHANCELLOR

' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-10-2003 in Civil Revision No,109 of 2003 (Muhammad Tariq Masood v. University of Peshawar through Vice Chancellor and others), whereby the said civil revision was dismissed,

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner brought a civil suit for correction of his name and date of birth in Secondary School Certificate issued by the University of Peshawar as back as in the year 1961, wherein Respondent No,6 Principal Government High School, Kaniguram, South Waziristan Agency and Respondent No,8 Headmaster High School Pai, Tehsil and District Tank filed their respective written statement and in the said suit and department where the petitioner was serving was not made as party, however learned Senior Civil Judge Tank dismissed the suit on 20-12-2003 against which appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Tank, who also dismissed the same, whereafter Civil Revision Petition No,109 of 2003 was preferred before the Peshawar High Court, Branch Registry Dera Ismail Khan which civil revision was also dismissed as per impugned judgment.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that erroneous entry regarding date of birth can be rectified at any stage when there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that the entry so made was erroneous and further that there was no bar in law in correcting the same. He further submitted that after correction at the petitioner's request the date of birth was recorded in the Secondary School Certificate as 1-1-1946, the learned Judge in Chambers could not have dismissed civil revision considering that change of date of birth in the matriculation certificate was sole prerogative of the authority issuing such certificate after consulting the record which in the case of petitioner was done but yet petitioner was not given redress by the Courts.

5. We do not find substance in the said contention.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner joined his service in 1969 wherein his date of birth was entered as 1-1-1944 as per matriculate certificate issued then, however that date of birth, was subsequently changed at his request as 1-1-1946 there appeared no reason, that in case the date of birth if initially wrongly shown as 1-1-1944 why the petitioner did not get it rectified soon after he joined the service but he waited till he came nearer to his age of retirement.

It may also be observed that the petitioner kept quiet over the major portion of service and did not agitate his plea with regard to wrong entry of his date of birth; therefore his plea would not carry any merit. Reference may be made to (i) Ghulam Haider v. Director of Education, Lahore (1971 SCM R 325), (ii) Muhammad Boota v. WAPDA and others (1994 SCM R 957) and (iii) M.R. Khalid v. Chief Secretary, Punjab and another (1994 SCM R 1633). It may also be observed that a civil servant cannot make application for change in his date of birth after two years of joining service as authenticity of date of birth recorded in the documents when he joined the service cannot be challenged belatedly as held by this Court in the case of (i) Syed Iqbal Haider v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 SCM R 1494), (ii) Union of India and others v. Mrs. Saroj Bala (AIR 1996 SC 1000), wherein in the latter case it was observed by the Indian Supreme Court that plea with regard to correction of date of birth after remaining eighteen years in service merited no consideration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any factual or legal infirmity with the judgment of learned Judge in Chambers and two Courts below warranting our interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. In fact the petitioner being a civil servant could riot have filed civil suit for the correction of date in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considering that plea raised with regard to age would fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal as held by this Court in M.R. Khalid's case, (ii) Ghulam Haider's case and (iii) Muhammad Boota, case (supra).

8. We find no merit in this petition, therefore leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.