' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 24- 12-2012 of the learned Service Tribunal, Quetta whereby it dismissed appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in BS-17 in the Irrigation Department, Government of Balochistan on 10-5-1982. He, after stepping up many rungs in terms of scales, lastly held the post of Chief Engineer. His date of birth in the Secondary School Certificate and the Service Book was recorded as 2-2-1953. Somehow, it dawned upon him that his actual date of birth is not 2-2-1953 but 2-2-1958. He, thus instituted a suit for declaration and correction of his date of birth. The decree asked for was granted. He approached the Secretary Irrigation Department for correction of his date of birth but of no avail.
He filed a representation but that too yielded no result. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but it too met the same fate.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that when the relevant record was looked into, it transpired that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 2-2-1958, therefore, he asked for its correction. It was liable to be corrected, argued the learned counsel, when a decree in this behalf was also passed. The learned counsel to support his contention placed reliance on the case of "Muhammad Sharif v. Chief Secretary and another" (2011 PLC (C.S.) 35).
4. We have gone through the record and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also considered the arguments addressed at the bar.
5. Before we discuss the merits of the case and arguments addressed at the bar it is worthwhile to refer to Rule 12A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 which reads as under:-- 112A. 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 a civil servants shall be permissible.].
6. The above quoted rule reveals that a date of birth once recorded at the time of joining government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date shall be permissible. This provision was inserted by SRO 521(I) on 31st July, 2000. An alteration before 31st July, 2000 could well be made but not thereafter. Reference to the case of "Muhammad Sharif v. Chief Secretary and another" (supra) will not be of any help to the petitioner as in that case the date of birth recorded in the Secondary School Certificate as well as Service Book was the same whereas it is not the case here. The idea to have the date of birth altered appears to be an off shoot of an afterthought. It, as a matter of fact, has become a common practice with the civil servants to file a civil suit for correction of date of birth when they come to the verge of their retirement just to prolong their tenure for enjoying the perks and privileges for a few more years at the cost of others.
7. How comes this that the petitioner who joined the service in 1982 could not know about his actual date of birth despite the passage of more than two decades. Especially when at various stages during his studies as well as service he filled many examination forms, other pro formas as well as service book. In the case of "Khalil Ahmad Siddiqui v. Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Interior Division, Government of Pakistan and 5 others" (2003 PLC (C.S.) 696), one of us while dealing with an identical situation held as under:-- "A perusal of the record would reveal that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 19-12- 1941 in the Secondary School Certificate as well as the service record. It may be true that the petitioner moved an application for the correction of his service record in the year 1966 before his.
High-Ups but it is equally true that the said application was not pursued to its logical end. It is also true that another application was moved in this behalf in the year 1982 but again it was left the halfway and never perused whole heartedly to the desired culmination. Why did the petitioner sit and sleep over it for decades and decades together has not been plausibly explained anywhere either in the writ petition or in rejoinder or during the course of arguments addressed at the bar.
Why did the petitioner make no effort to get corrected the very basic document of Secondary School Certificate from the Board concerned is another circumstance which violently militates against the genuineness of the stand adopted by him as to the date of birth. If at all the petitioner was in know of some document showing is actual date of birth lying somewhere in Bijnoor, he could well have gone to India to fetch it in mid or late sixties. Why did he postpone his purposeful visit to India till 1998 and why did he not use the good offices of his relatives to have the same is yet another question whose answer cannot be found either from the record or the counsel representing the petitioner. It, is a matter of fact, has become a common phenomenon and usual practice that the Government Servants if and when they come at the verge of their retirement, they question their dates of birth just to prolong their tenure and enjoy the perks and privileges of their service for a few more years at the cost of others. This idea never creeps across their mind earlier and in case it does, it is never taken seriously and pursued to the desired end. It is clearly and sequarely a case of estoppel of conduct which will certainly bar and barricade the petitioner from seeking the correction asked for at least at such a belated stage".
8. In the case of "Khalil Ahmed Siddiqui v. Pakistan, through Secretary Interior, Islamabad and 5 others" (2004 PLC (C.S) 1044), this Court while dismissing the petition against the aforesaid judgment held as under:-- "There is no cavil to the proposition that the above rule having no retrospective effect, would not apply to the cases in which the date of birth of the Government servant was corrected before its promulgation but the request of the petitioner in this behalf was turned down by the department having been found without any foundation and consequently the operation of the rule in question in the case of petitioner would not be excluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on Government of Balochistan through Secretary S&GAD, Quetta v. Marjan Khan (2003 PLC (C.S.) 245) and Tarb Arif Fatimi v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 562) has contended that the matter was not properly considered by the High Court in the light of law laid down by the superior Courts on the subject. We, in the above factual background of the case, do not feel it necessary to further dilate upon the question of applicability of rule 12-A ibid, or the claim of petitioner on the ratio of above referred judgments. The petitioner without producing any proof in support of his claim, sought correction of his date of birth only on the basis of oral assertion that his date of birth given in the Secondary School Certificate was not correct. We are afraid, the controversial question of fact cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The matter relating to the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth in the service record being purely question of fact, cannot be determined without recording of evidence and detailed scrutiny of facts and such exercise cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. Further the learned counsel has not been able to convince us that the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matters connected with the terms and conditions of the service of a civil servant is not ousted under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This petition having no substance is accordingly, dismissed.
Leave is refused."
When viewed against this backdrop, we don't find any merit in this petition.
9. For the reasons discussed above, this petition being without merit is dismissed and the leave asked for is refused.