' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.---The captioned petition for leave to appeal is addressed against the judgment of learned Service Tribunal dated 16-1-2012 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner against notification dated 11-1-2012 has been dismissed.
2. Precise summary of facts, giving rise to this petition is that the authority, i.e Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, on 11-1-2012, issued retirement notification of the petitioner, w.e.f 14-1-2012.
The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed Appeal No, 67 in the Service Tribunal on 14-1-2012 wherein it has been alleged that at the time of induction in Police Department i.e, on 20-4-1971, his age in the service book has been wrongly recorded as 18 years. Before his induction, he passed Secondary School Examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore in the year 1970. According to his matriculation certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 15-1-1956. Due to misplacement of the original matriculation certificate, he approached the concerned board for issuance of duplicate copy of the matriculation certificate. Despite passage of five months' time, the concerned Board failed to dispose of his application, hence, he was forced to file writ petition in Lahore High Court. The learned High Court Lahore, vide order dated 31-10-2011, directed the board to finalize the matter within one month's time. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore, vide letter dated 20-12-2011, communicated the petitioner that his date of birth is recorded as 15-1-1952. According to the petitioner's version, the letter is issued in violation of the direction of Lahore High Court because he has not been associated in the inquiry proceedings. Another writ petition was filed to challenge the propriety of this letter which is still sub judice. He also filed a representation before the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for correction of date of birth in the record, upon which, the Prime Minister called a report from the Secretary Law, Justice, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights Department. The petitioner filed a writ of prohibition in the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir which has been dismissed in limine vides order dated 11-1- 2012. In this perspective, he claimed in appeal before the Service Tribunal that his retirement notification has been issued in violation of law.
3. The learned Service Tribunal, after hearing the preliminary arguments, concluded that the petitioner has served more than 40 years in the Police Department and he has not timely applied for correction of his date of birth. He himself applied for issuance of duplicate copy of matriculation certificate and upon his application, the Board verified his date of birth as 15-1-1952. As the petitioner has been retired from service, the matter agitated, requires complete investigation which can only be made by the Civil Court, thus, through the impugned judgment, the appeal has been dismissed in limine.
4. Ch. Muhammad Taj, Advocate, representing the petitioner, after brief statement of facts, vehemently argued that the Service Tribunal has fell in error of law by holding that the matter can only be resolved by Civil Court whereas the Service Tribunal is also vested with all the powers of Civil Court. Moreover, according to peculiar facts of this case and undisputed record, the matter of issuance of duplicate certificate is still sub judice before Lahore High Court. He forcefully argued that according to the record, the petitioner's date of birth is 15-1-1956, thus, issuance of his retirement notification is sheer violation of the provisions of statutory law. He also referred to the copies of some certificates issued by the educaticmal institutions wherein his date of birth has been shown as 15-1-1956. Thus, according to his version, the Service Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the appeal in limine.
5. Conversely, Mr. Asghar Ali Malik, Advocate, the learned counsel for caveator respondents Nos.1 to 3, forcefully defended the impugned judgment on the ground that according to the provisions of Chapter-IX of the Police Rules, 1934, the incumbents of the Police Department can seek correction with regard to the entries in the service book within a period of two years from the date of induction. The petitioner himself approached the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and after due inquiry, it has been proved that his date of birth is 15-1-1952 which is otherwise corresponding with the facts of the case. Undisputedly he has been inducted in service on 20-4- 1971. If the version of the petitioner is accepted, it means that at the time of his induction in the police service, his age was 15 years and according to Police Service Rules, the age limit is 18 years.
The retirement notification has been issued rightly according to the entries incorporated in the record and has become operative. Whereas the petitioner has not brought on record any conclusive proof in support of his claim. Thus, no question of public importance is involved and the petition has no merit which is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar on behalf of the parties and also perused the record, made available. The petitioner himself claimed that he has been inducted into service on 20-4-1971 and he has rendered more than 40 years' service. For the first time, he raised the dispute regarding the correction of his date of birth before the competent authority on 16-12-2011, just less than a one month's time before his retirement.
7. The petitioner has brought on record the letter of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore dated 20-12-2011. Relevant portion of the letter is reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} although according to the petitioner's version, the writ petition regarding validity of this letter is sub judice before the Lahore High Court. Be that as may be, according to the latest verification issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore, the petitioner's date of birth is 15-1- 1952. This verification has been issued after holding an inquiry. Unless any contrary conclusion drawn by the Board is not brought on record, this verification cannot be ignored. In our opinion, in this matter, the most relevant and competent authority/institution is the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore.
6. The petitioner, who according to his own version, was inducted in to police service under the provisions of Police Act and Rules. Chapter XII of the Police Rules, 1934, deals with the appointments and enrolments in which it is laid down that the recruits shall not be less than 18 years of age.
Reference can be made to Rules 4 and 15 of Chapter XII. Thus, it is clear that according to statutory provision, no person can be inducted into police service, who is less than 18 years of age. The petitioner's version, that his date of birth is 15-1-1956, is not acceptable because no one can be appointed in police service at the age of 15 years. The petitioner has no dispute regarding the date and month of birth, he only disputes the year of birth. He himself placed on record copy of service book (Form Aamal Nama) which bears his signatures at the end of the undertaking given by him, thus, it is clear that entry of his age/date of birth was well within his knowledge from very beginning but he has not taken any step till the process for his retirement is initiated. Whereas according to the provisions of Rule 7 Chapter-VII of the Police Rules, 1934, an alteration can only be made after special enquiry, if applied for within two years of the applicant's entry into service.
9. This Court, in a case titled Dr. Khawaja Muhammad Aslam v. Abdul Rauf Khan and 6 others reported as 2000 YLR 1005, has dealt with the question of change of date of birth in the light of provisions of Rule 67 of the Financial Code. It will be useful to reproduce here para 10 of the judgment which reads as follows:-- "... The question of change of date of birth is dealt with in Rule 67 of the Financial Code which runs as follows:-- "The date of birth of appointment of present post and of promotion to present pay, of each person should be entered in the appropriate column. The date of birth by English year should be given and if the exact date is not known, the approximate date of year should be stated. The declaration of age made at the time of, or for the purpose of entry into Government service should be deemed absolutely conclusive and no revision of such a declaration should be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatsoever."
In view of the principle of law enunaated in Dr. Kh. Muhammad Aslam's case, the declaration of age at the time of entry in Government service should be deemed absolutely conclusive. The petitioner, despite rendering the service of more than 40 years has not disputed the entries of the service record regarding his age thus, at this belated stage, in the light of statutory provision, his claim is not acceptable.
' In the light of above discussed facts and reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal, thus, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this petition, hence, being devoid of any force, the same stands dismissed. As the petition for leave to appeal has been dismissed, consequently, the applications for interim relief also stand disposed of.