Professor Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM BALOCH vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN

' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This Petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13- 6-2014 of the Balochistan Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the Service Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed with direction to the Balochistan Government to issue retirement notification of the petitioner and recover all the salaries from him with effect from 16-11-2011.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of the Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (BS-18) General Surgery, Bolan Medical College, vide notification dated 6-3-1991 and was ultimately promoted as Professor (BS-19) in the year 2006. The department issued seniority lists in the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2009 in which the date of birth of the appellant was recorded as 16- 11-1951. Initially on 7-1-2004 and 12-11-2010, the petitioner submitted an application to the Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, for alteration of date of birth in his service record as 16-11- 1954 instead of 16-11-1951. The Chief Secretary marked his'application to the Secretary, Health Department, who processed a summary in the shape of a Note for the Chief Secretary. On 31-3- 2011, the Chief Secretary approved the summary and marked the matter to the Inquiry Committee constituted in terms of Rule 11 of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Transfer and Promotion) Rules, 2009, to examine the issue and submit its recommendations within 15 days. The Inquiry Committee recommended the alteration of date of birth in the service record of the petitioner and forwarded it to the Chief Secretary which was approved by him. Consequent upon the approval accorded by the Chief Secretary, the Secretary, Health Department, Government of Balochistan, issued notification notifying alteration in date of birth in the service record of the petitioner as 16-11-1954 instead of 16-11-1951.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that on 3-7-2013, the Health Department, Government of Balochistan, issued a notification, for transfer of the petitioner from the post of Principal, Bolan Medical College, Quetta to the Health Department. The petitioner challenged the said, notification in Appeal before the Tribunal, and on 5-7-2013, the Tribunal suspended the notification dated 3-7- 2013 till further orders and allowed the petitioner to continue as Principal Bolan Medical College, Quetta. On 26-8-2013, the Tribunal accepted the Appeal of the petitioner against which the respondent No,4 filed a Civil Petition No,1545 of 2013 before this Court, in which on 28-11-2013 leave was granted and the proceedings were numbered as Civil Appeal No,1440 of 2013. This Court on 16- 1-2014, with the consent of parties set aside the judgment of the Tribunal dated 26-8-2013 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with direction to decide the Appeal of the petitioner afresh, recording findings on the issues raised before this Court in the Appeal besides the issues highlighted by this Court in its orders dated 18-11-2013 and in the leave granting order dated 28-11- 2013 respectively.

4. In the post remand proceedings, the Tribunal framed 4 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. Consequently, by impugned judgment, the Tribunal set aside the notification pertaining to alteration in date of birth of the petitioner in his service record with direction to the Government of Balochistan to issue retirement notification of the petitioner from the date the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation i,e, 15-11-2011 and recover all the salaries from the petitioner which he had received from the Government of Balochistan since 16-11-2011. Hence this Petition for leave to appeal.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by holding that the petitioner was not entitled to get altered his date of birth in the service record in view of the bar contained under Rule 11 of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Transfer and Promotion) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). According to the learned Counsel the petitioner has noticed that his date of birth was not mentioned in the column of the seniority list circulated in the year 2004 against which he submitted a representation. He further submitted that the Rule 11 provides that on such representation, the date of birth of a Civil Servant can be altered/changed after inquiry.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. We have inquired from the learned Counsel as to how it could be possible that the column of date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was left blank when others who were appointed have their dates of birth recorded in their service books, he could not offer any plausible explanation except that in 2004 he made representation on the issue. It is a requirement of law that on receipt of offer letter, a candidate has to submit his academic record containing details inclusive of the documents mentioning his date of birth. The department on receipt of such material issues joining letter and the service record is accordingly prepared and maintained which contains all the particulars including the date of birth which is material for maintaining seniority of the candidates.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner falls out side the purview of Rule 11 is also misconceived. The language of Rule 11 of the Rules which deals with the alteration in the date of birth clearly suggests that the date of birth of a Civil Servant once recorded at the time of joining the Government Service shall be final and would not be altered except where a clerical mistake occurs in recording the same in the service record. It further provides that the request of a Civil Servant for change of date of birth shall not be entertained after a period of two years from the date of such entry in his service record. The petitioner joined the service on 6-3-1991 and since then up to the year 2004 and has never objected to the entry of his date of birth. The record reveals that the department issued seniority lists at times in which date of birth of the Petitioner was mentioned as 16-11-1951. The material produced and examined by the Tribunal clearly suggests' that the petitioner got altered/changed his date of birth when he was at the verge of his retir9ment in the year 2011. The original date of birth of the appellant, as per the material examined by the Tribunal was 16-11-1951 which was got altered by petitioner to 16-11-1954, by fabricated documents. The Rules do not authorize the competent authority to entertain any representation for altering the date of birth of a /A Civil Servant beyond two years in the service record.

8. We have inquired from the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is a Civil Servant and is governed by the Balochistan Civil Servants Act 1974, he concedes but contends that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the bar contained in Rule 11 and is an exception to the aforesaid Rule. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to persuade us as to how the case of the petitioner could be construed as an exception to the Rule. The contention of the learned Counsel that the date of birth of the petitioner was not entered in his service record and subsequently somewhere in the year 2004, he acquired the knowledge that column regarding date of birth in the seniority list was blank, therefore, on further probe he learnt that column of his date of birth in the service record is blank and made representations for alteration in his date of birth does not appeal to reason. We have gone through the application dated 7-1-2004 of the petitioner for change of date of birth made to the competent authority. The contents of the Application reflects that the seniority list was issued on 16-12-2003 and the date of birth of the petitioner finds mention in the relevant column as 16-11-1951. Besides, the record reflects that the seniority list has been floated at times wherein the original age of birth of the petitioner was mentioned, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the column of date of birth in the seniority list was blank is belied from contents of the application/representation of the petitioner addressed to the competent authority.

9. In the foregoing circumstances, we must record our displeasure over the manner under which the Inquiry Committee has probed into the issue of date of birth of the petitioner. The Committee comprising of senior officers of the Balochistan Government has extended favour to the petitioner by recommending alteration in his date of birth in the service record against the language of Rule 11 besides restricting themselves to record their recommendations on the basis' of a duplicate Matric Certificate and N.I.C. Which were obtained by foul play, which documents could not be construed as conclusive proof for determination of date of birth. The petitioner in connivance with the high ups in the Government of Balochistan has managed to alter his date of birth and inspite of the impugned judgment is continuing in office. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary Balochistan to issue the notification of retirement of the petitioner forthwith in terms of the impugned judgment and recover the salaries from the proposed pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary Balochistan for his information and compliance.

9(sic.) In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which is well reasoned to which no exception can be taken. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.