ABDUL MAJEED vs PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding the alteration of his date of birth. The petitioner, who entered service in 1973 with a recorded date of birth of October 20, 1948, sought alteration only after 35 years of service, near his superannuation. He relied on his National Identity Card, Primary School Certificate, a Medical Board report, and an age relaxation granted by the Chief Minister of Balochistan. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that under Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules 1934, any alteration in the date of birth must be sought within two years of entering service. Furthermore, Rule 12(A) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Rules 1979 prohibits such alteration. The Court ruled that the Chief Minister's discretion was not exercised in accordance with law as no such relaxation could be granted contrary to the statutory rules. Consequently, no substantial question of law of public importance was involved.
- Whether a civil servant can seek alteration of their date of birth after 35 years of service and near the age of superannuation?
- Can the Chief Minister grant age relaxation or alter a date of birth in violation of the prescribed civil service rules?
- What is the limitation period for seeking an alteration of date of birth under Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules 1934?
- Article 212, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Rule 9.7(2), Police Rules 1934
- Rule 12(A), Balochistan Civil Servants Rules 1979
Javed Iqbal, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.10.2009 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. On failure to get altered the date of birth, petitioner approached the learned Service Tribunal by means of appeal and on dismissal, the jurisdiction as conferred upon this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been invoked.
3. Heard Mr. M.W.N. Kohli, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner who mainly argued that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention, it is submitted that National Identity Card, Primary School Certificate, Report of Medical Board and age relaxation given by the Chief Minister, Balochistan have been ignored without any rhyme and reason. It is next contended that the provisions as enumerated in Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 have been misconstrued and misinterpreted causing serious prejudice against the petitioner.
4. We have carefully examined the above mentioned contentions-in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The petitioner had joined service on 20.10.1973 and got recorded his date of birth as 20.10.1948 and no request whatsoever was made to get it altered till the age of superannuation. The petitioner woke-up from a deep slumber after 35 years and no explanation whatsoever could be furnished regarding this silence which speaks a volume about his conduct and genuineness of his claim which has rightly been turned down by the learned Service Tribunal, in view of the provisions as enumerated in Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 whereby an alteration in date of birth can be sought within two years of the service which. could not be done for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Besides that under Rule 12 (A) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Rules, 1979 no such alteration is permissible. It may be mentioned here that Chief Minister has not exercised his discretion in accordance with law and settled norms of justice as no such relaxation in age could have been granted by him which is not in consonance with the above referred to rules.
5. It is worth mentioning that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved and the conclusion as arrived, at by the learned Service Tribunal, after examination of entire record, could not be regarded as capricious or perverse and no question of law of public importance arose for consideration. In such view of the matter, leave to appeal cannot be granted. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities:-- Karamat Hussain v. Province of the Punjab (1982 SCM R 897), Razia Sultana v. Gout. of Punjab (1981 SCM R 715), M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1980 SC 22), Nisar Ahmad Khawaja v. Muhammad Usman Muhammad Khan Wasan (1980 SCM R 722), Yousaf Hussain Siddiqui v.
Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Peshawar (1976 SCM R 268), Director Food v. Rashid Ahmad (1990 SCM R 1446), Province of Punjab v. Rao Abdul Jalil Khan (1989 SCM R 330), Abdul Razaq v. Province of Punjab (1980 SCM R 876), Muhammad Yaqub Sheikh, District Engineer, District Council, T.T. Singh v. Govt. of Punjab thr. Secy. Local Govt. and Rural Development Depat., Lahore and others (1987 SCM R 1354), Director Food, Punjab, Lahore v. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti (1988 SCM R 496).
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition being meritless i dismissed and leave refused.