SAIMA ILTAF vs PRINCIPAL, JUNIOR BURN HALL GIRLS COLLEGE, ABBOTTABAD

ORDER

Saima Iltaf, a student of Medical College, has filed this civil revision against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Abbottabad, dated 25-4-2000 by which the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, dated 22-6-1999 passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff against the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad and the Principal, Junior Burn Hall Girls College, Abbottabad for correction of her date of birth from 28-2-1972 to128-2-1975 was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard in motion. He contended that the District Judge; has without sound reasons, disbelieved the birth certificate produced by the doctor of the hospital where the petitioner was born. He further submitted that the defendants-respondents had not produced any evidence to ' contradict the claim of the petitioner, but had simply relied upon the Matric and Intermediate Certificates in which the petitioner's date of birth is stated to be 28.2-1972.

The learned counsel pointed out that the representative of the Burn Hall College, where the petitioner had studied was unable to produce any record in which the petitioner's date of birth has been recorded to be that given in the Matric Certificate.

3. The learned counsel representing the respondents, who appeared on pre-admission notice, were heard. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the plaintiff-petitioner had to establish her own case and no decree could be granted to her on the basis of weakness in the defendants' case. The learned counsel further made a reference to notification, dated 9-4-1990 of the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, under which correction for date of birth can be applied for within 10 years of the issuance of the certificate and that too if it is not in consonance with the school record. The learned counsel representing the respondents pointed out that the date of birth claimed by the petitioner cannot be true as she had passed her Matric Examination in the year 1987 and would have been only 12 years of age had she been born on 28-2-1975.

4. The Matric Certificate and the Intermediate Certificate undoubtedly show that the petitioner was born on 28-2-1972. The date of birth given in the certificate is taken from the Examination Forms submitted by the candidates. The Examination Forms are filled up by the candidates and the petitioner does not deny that she had given 28-2-1972 her date of birth in the form submitted by her. Additionally these forms were submitted through the college where the petitioner studied and the particulars given in the forms given by the candidates are generally checked by the school with the record maintained by them. It is, thus, clear that not only the petitioner consciously entered 28-2-1972;as her date of birth in Examination Form but such date or birth was in accordance with the date recorded by the school/college in their own record.

5. The, burden was on the plaintiff-petitioner to show that the date of birth so given in the certificate was incorrect. The only evidence produced by the petitioner was a doctor from the clinic where the petitioner was born. Naseeb Khan, Medical Officer; Women and Children Hospital, Abbottabad, who was examined as P.W.1 produced birth certificate Exh.P.W.l/1 wherein the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 28-2-1975. This certificate was issued on 21-5-1999. It was, thus, a freshly procured certificate and not one E issued at the birth of the petitioner. The certificate was not substantiated by the production of the relevant register from (sic) certificate would not be enough to dislodge the documentary evidence against the petitioner's claim.

6. The learned District Judge has also rightly observed that if the claim of the petitioner is accepted, it would mean that the petitioner was admitted in school at the age of 2, because she passed her Matric in the year 1987 and she claims to have been born in the year 1975.

7. The learned counsel representing the Burn Hall College also, produced, at the hearing of the civil revision, the Admission Form of the petitioner in Class-II. She was admitted in the school in that class in the year 1978. Admission in the year 1978 in Class-II is in consonance with the petitioner's date of birth of 28-2-1972 and not 28-2-1975.

8. For the foregoing reasons I do not find that the Appellate Court has fallen into error by dismissing the petitioner's suit. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.