PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J. Through this revision petition, the petitioner challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge, Vehari dated 20.9.2008 and of the learned District Judge dated 10.10.2008.
2. Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of this petition are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that in view of report of Radiologist his date of birth may be declared as 13.3.1952 instead of year 1943, which "was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.2008 whereagainst he preferred an appeal which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2009.
'
3. It is inter alia contended that before the learned Civil Judge, the respondent in their written statement submitted that they have no objection if the relief as prayed for is allowed and despite that fact that conceding statement was made by respondent District Registration Authority, the suit has been dismissed. Places reliance upon 2007 SCM R 66 "Qamar-ud-Din v. Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and another" and 2004 SCM R 121.
4. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposes this submission and submits that the age once recorded in the service record of a government servant has to be treated final and no change is permissible therein subsequently under the rules. Refers to Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973:
5. - Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner admittedly is a civil servant. He himself got recorded in his service record his date of birth as year 1943 at the time of joining his service. Now he is aged about 57' years and would be retiring on account of superannuation within next three years: Law on the subject is very clear. Rule 12-A of the afore-stated Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 is reproduced hereunder:- "12.A Alteration in the date of birth.. The date of birth once recorded at the time of joining government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of civil servant shall be permissible."
The case-law relied -upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also of not much help to him.
In 2007 SCM R 66 "Qamar-ud-Din v. Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and another." Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the petition with similar prayer observed as follows:--- "We may observe that lately a tendency has developed whereby unwarranted claims, attempting to show .Error in date of birth are asserted 'towards retiring age by fabricating or manipulating documents in that behalf. Obviously such practice must be discouraged and effectively curbed."
The second judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner (2004 SCM R 121), pertains to Juvenile Justice System Ordinance. On the strength of this judgment, learned counsel has tried to canvass that the opinion of the medical board was accepted as true by this Court regarding age of the accused. A young boy of 20 years of age and that is separate trial was not allowed to be conducted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
7. The law on the subject is very clear. It has in categorical terms been provided in the relevant rules that date of birth once recorded at the time of joining government service has to be treated as are final.
8. I also find that petitioner kept mum for about three decades and when he was close to the age of superannuation he filed a suit during the month of March, 2008 which by itself smells foul play.
Both the judgments and decrees impugned are concurrent in nature, besides well-reasoned and perfectly in accordance with law on the subject. I am, therefore of the considered view that this move of the petitioner is tainted with mala fide and is for ulterior motives. The age once having been recorded at the time of joining government service has to be treated as final, otherwise there can be no end to litigation. I, therefore, find no merits in this petition which is hereby dismissed. .