MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J. --- Ayub Gul, petitioner herein, has challenged the judgments and decrees of Additional District Judge-I and Civil. Judge-VI, Lakki Marwat dated 24.3.2009 and 12.3.2009 respectively whereby his suit was dismissed.
2. Briefly narrated facts of the case are that Ayub Gul had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that his correct date of birth is 11.4.1951 and. The wrong entries with respect to the date of birth dated. 11.4.1949 is cropped uporn from his Matric certificate and consequently the same. Was .Entered in National Identity Card which wrong entry is illegal, not binding on him and thus liable to be corrected.'
3. The defendant/respondents were summoned who submitted detailed written statement.
However, defendant/respondent No. 2, Faridullah Khan, Head Master filed a cognovits admitting the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner. The learned Trial Court in view of the pleadings of the parties framed five issues including the relief. The plaintiff/petitioner then produced his evidence which he wished to adduce, while the defendant/respondent relied on the evidence recorded by the plaintiff/petitioner. The learned Trial Court after scanning the record, taking the evidence into consideration and hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner , vide judgment and decree dated 12.3.2009 and his appeal before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Lakki Marwat also met the same fate vide judgment and decree referred above, hence the instant revision petition.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner as been incorrectly mentioned in the record which later on were incorporated in his educational certificates and National Identity Card. It was also submitted that the defendant/respondent No. 2 had filed cognovits in the case of admitting the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner, thus the wrong entries were admitted. It was next submitted that the .Defendant/respondent No. 1 had led no evidence, so there was no evidence in rebuttal against the claim of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the date of birth can be corrected during the service period of a civil servant in the view of the' dictum handed down in the case of Administrative Committee of High Court of Sindh through Registrar, High Court of Sindh Karachi and another v. Arjun Ram K. Talreja and another (NLR 2008 Civil 532).
5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy AdVocate General for the respondent.
6. Perusal of the record shows that the alleged wrong entry according to petitioner cropped up when he was a student of Primary School which was duly incorporated in various record of the Board as well as the University. On this alleged wrong date of birth, the petitioner joined service and completed his tenure of service while reaching the age of -superannuation. He was awakened from a deep slumber and filed the instant suit in order to gain extension in service: The superannuation of sixty years was completed on 10.4.2009 and thus he got retired from service.
7. During the last long period of service he never objected to the date of birth and under this date of birth duly recorded in the testimonials, he joined service, remained in the > Public Health Engineering Department secured promotions and reached to the post of Executive Engineer. The attorney for the plaintiff while being cross-examined. As PW.2 categorically admitted in the cross- examination that . During the entire service of the plaintiff/petitioner, he has never intimated this fact to his department i.e. Public Health, Engineering Department; nor ever applied for the alleged correction 'of his date of birth, so much so that he obtained the Nation6I Identity Card from NADRA and in filing the form thereto entered his date of birth as 11.4.1949. The attorney for .The plaintiff was also confronted with the admission form Ex. PW-D-2/5, wherein the plaintiff appeared in Matric examination from Government High School Tank in the year 1966 under Roll Number 15648 wherein the date of birth was entered as 11.4.1949.
Thus, the plaintiff/petitioner is legally estopped to challenge the said date of birth specially in the circumstances where he reached the age , of superaruation on 10.4.2009 which cannot be corrected in view on the dicta handed down in the case of Sarfraz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1950) and Government of ale Punjab through Secretary Department of Education Lahore v. Prof. Mst. Jamida Malik and another (1991 MLD page 824). Besides also, the matter related to the terms and conditions of service which action can only be challenged before the Services Tribunal and no other Court has got jurisdiction to entertain such-like pleas in view of the bar ,,,contained under Article 212 of the Constitution 'of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
8: In view of the facts and circumstances of the. case narrated above, there is no force in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Civil revision .