' MRS. ASHRAF JAHAN, J.--- The petitioner Dr. Nasim Ghani has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Constitution"), with the following prayer:--- "(A) To declare the actual date of birth of petitioner to be 1-6-1952 and not 1-6-1951 per school register, primary school certificate inasmuch as such correction recorded by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, in the Matric certificate. Hence she would be deemed to be retired on 31-12-2012. Therefore her retirement on 31-12-2011 on the basis of wrong certificate was illegal and hence set aside.
(B) To direct the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in service record, in view of school register, primary certificate, middle school certificate as well as corrected Matric certificate, issued by the Board and recall her retirement placing her in the position as existed before her retirement. In the alternative, the difference of one years salary be paid to her.
(C) To award cost of petition.
(D) To grant any other relief, as deemed fit and proper and in the interest of justice."
2. The relevant concise facts as per petition are that the petitioner was born on 1-6-1952, got her primary education from MCGP School No,6 Sahiwal and passed middle standard examination in the year 1965, such certificate was issued bearing the date of birth as 1-6-1952. Subsequently she passed her matriculation examination in the year 1967 from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore. In the year 1980 the petitioner joined service in The University of Karachi and retired as Professor in the Zoology Department. During the service in the year 2010 she came to know that University is going to retire her in the year 2011. On inquiry she was informed that on the basis of certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore, her date of birth had wrongly been recorded as 1-6-1951 instead of 1-6-1952. The petitioner moved an application to the Board Authorities for correction in the date of birth, which was accordingly corrected and such certificate was issued on 12-5-2011 showing her date of birth as 1-6-1952. This certificate was produced before the respondent No, 1 for correction in the record, but her request was declined and she was retired from service on 31-5-2011. Further the case of the petitioner is that in the year 2010 she got the knowledge about her retirement in the year 2011, therefore she applied for correction in the date of birth to the University in the year 2011 and such delay is not intentional or deliberate.
3. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed their comments raising preliminary objections in respect of maintainability of this petition on the ground that University of Karachi has no statutory Rules of Service, therefore, this petition regarding terms and conditions of the Service is not maintainable. It is urged that while acquiring service in University the petitioner had submitted her matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore bearing her date of birth as 1-6-1951. She remained in service for more than 30 years and it is only on 5-7-2010 when for the first time she applied for correction in her date of birth. It is pointed out that as per date of birth rules of University of Karachi, all the candidates are required to produce their matriculation certificate, therefore the University has rightly and justifiably accepted the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in her own produced matriculation certificate. The syndicate in its meeting held on 6-12-2008 had already resolved that application for change in date of birth can be given within two years of service, which resolution is strictly in accordance with the judgments of the superior courts. The case of the petitioner is miserably hit by the principle of laches as the petition has been filed after lapse of more than 30 years of joining the service, that too after her retirement on 31-5-2011.
4. We have heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Moen Azhar Siddiqui learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner has agitated that at the time of induction in service she had produced two certificates i.e, one of middle and the other of matriculation. The earlier one was issued by the Nizamat-e-Taleem Lahore in respect of her middle standard exams held in the year 1965 wherein her date of birth is clearly mentioned as 1-6-1952. Whereas in the other certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore her date of birth is incorrectly mentioned as 1-6-1951, however subsequently in the year 2011 the same was got corrected and such corrected certificate was produced by her before the University Authorities, but they declined to correct the date and she was retired from service on 31-5-2011. In support of her contention she has also produced the photo copy of her CNIC showing her date of birth as 1-6-1952.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents has submitted that as per University record based on her own matriculation certificate her date of birth is 31-5-1951, therefore, letter for her retirement was rightly issued by the Registrar on 15-6-2010 for encashment of LPR. Thereafter, she made application for correction of date of birth at a belated stage in the year 2011. However, as per syndicate resolution her request was turned down in the light of judgments of superior courts, therefore in the above circumstances the present petition is not maintainable. He further highlighted that since the University of Karachi has no statutory rules therefore the petition is not maintainable under the law and the only remedy available for the petitioner is before the civil court. In this respect he has referred to the judgment dated 31-10-2011, passed in the case of MUHAMMAD ZAHID MAQSOOD V. UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI AND OTHERS (C.P. NO.D-1577 OF 2011). In the end he has submitted that as the instant petition has been filed after lapse of more than 30 years of service, even after retirement the same is hit by the principle of laches and liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions he further relied upon the case of SYED IQBAL HYDER V.
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER (1998 SCMR 1994) and the case of MRS. YASMEEN ABBASI V.
PROVINCE OF SINDH AND OTHERS (SBLR 2009 Sindh 115).
6. In the light of above submissions, we have carefully examined the case file. It is an admitted position that petitioner was issued her matriculation certificate from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore on 30-11-1967, which was produced by her before the University authorities along with other documents at the time of induction in service. It is surprising that despite knowledge of the fact that two of her certificates i.e, middle and matriculation certificates bear different dates of birth, the petitioner did not have them rectified at the earliest. It is pertinent to mention here that at no stage of the present proceedings the petitioner has challenged the genuineness or disowned the copy of original matriculation certificate containing her date of birth as 1-6-1951. She has further not come out with any explanation that why she allegedly filed her middle exam certificate at the time of joining service as the matriculation certificate has met the requirement of her qualification to join service.
7. As per her own case after receiving the letter from the Registrar Karachi University she had her matriculation certificate corrected and then produced the corrected certificate dated 12-5-2011 before the University authorities. The said certificate was not accepted at such belated stage and finally she was retired on 31-5-2011.
8. In the instant petition the petitioner has sought declaration to the effect that her date of birth may be declared to be 1-6-1952, her order of retirement may be recalled and in the alternative, difference of one year's salary be paid to her. The record reveals that petition has been filed on 3- 2-2012, when she had already retired from service on 31-5-2011. Thus the issue before this court is to ascertain whether such relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner, at this belated stage.
9. For this we have to also refer to the code of University of Karachi, and the rules made thereunder, called as "University of Karachi Declaration of Date of Birth Rules 1970". For the sake of convenience and ready reference same are reproduced here as under: "Declaration of Date of Birth Rules
1. (i) These rules may be called the "University of Karachi Declaration of Date of Birth Rules, 1970".
(ii) These rules shall apply to all the new entrants to the University service and also to those employees whose age has not been admitted as yet.
(iii) These rules shall come into force at once.
2. (i) All Matriculates must produce their Matriculation Certificates to prove their date of birth.
(ii) All non-Matriculates should produce their Birth certificates to prove their dates of birth.
(iii) In case the University is satisfied that neither of the two documents mentioned in (i) and (ii) above can possibly be supplied, it may demand such documentary evidence as it may deem fit.
3. In case an employee is not able to prove his age in accordance with the conditions laid down above, payment of his salary shall be withheld till such time as the required evidence is not supplied."
10. The perusal of above rules reveals that same are applicable to all employees of University and for the purpose of determination of age matriculation certificate is the valid document, which has to be produced on record by all matriculate employees. In the present case the petitioner has also produced her matriculation certificate knowingly that it bears her date of birth as 1-6-1951.
11. It is inconceivable that the petitioner who is a well educated lady, having remained in service for over 30 years with the University was unaware of her date of birth mentioned in her matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore, which must have passed through her hands and sight uncountable number of times. Notwithstanding the above, even otherwise the present petition badly suffers from laches as the declaratory relief claimed is being sought more than forty years after knowledge of the issuance of the matriculation certificate on 30-11-1967, having alleged incorrect date. It will be relevant to mention here that courts always help the vigilant, but do not help the person, who is negligent in pursuing his/her grievances, following the principle; vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. [The laws give help to those who are A watchful and not to those who sleep upon their rights]. Like in the present case the petitioner did not make efforts since the year 1967 to get her date of birth rectified. Even no plausible explanation is given in this regard. Therefore, on the ground of laches too the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the instant petition. Specifically in the situation that she has already retired from service on 31-5-2011. But even then she has approached the court through this petition on 3-2-2012, after more than eight months with no iota of explanation for this further delay.
Thus for her own negligence or careless attitude University cannot be burdened for the compensation prayed by her.
12. The other assertion of the petitioner regarding production of her middle school certificate showing her different date of birth also seems to be an after thought as the requirement as per service rules applicable to the petitioner was for production of only matriculation certificate by the candidates. Therefore there was no occasion for the production of middle pass certificate for any purpose.
13. Further, the contention of the respondents referring to the decision of syndicate dated 6-12-2008 regarding change in the date of birth of University employees has much force, as this decision is based upon the judgments of superior courts as referred to above. Admittedly, this decision was taken much before the case of present petitioner, therefore it cannot be said that it is mala fide or discriminatory in nature. Moreover, when as per Provincial as well as Federal Government Service Rules, a Government servant can have his/her date of birth corrected within two years of joining Government service and thereafter such option is not open to him/her. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case-law supra referred by the respondent's side and further upon the case of HAQ NAWAZ KIANI V. THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (1998 SCM R 801), which lays down that the Service rules regarding correction of age within two years from entry into service are apparently sound and logical, the Government Servants cannot be normally permitted to rise from deep slumber and dramatically announce change in the date of birth; when about to retire. Similar view is taken in the case of GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LAHORE V. PROF. JAMILA MALIK (1999 SCM R 861). In the present case though the rules are not statutory in nature, nevertheless the same are binding on all University Employees. Thus, the University syndicate being final authority has rightly passed the order dated 6-12-2008 based on above referred rule, which is not open to interference.
14. During the proceeding of present petition the petitioner has taken the plea that her date of birth in the University record was 1-6-1952 and for the first time in the year 2010 she came in knowledge that her retirement is in the year 2011. To ascertain the correct position her original service book was called and it was minutely examined, at page "1", in respect of name and other personal information the first six entries reveal that they are in three different hand writings, with three different inks. Though one of such entry which seems to be in the hand writing of petitioner makes mention her date of birth as 1-6-1952, but at the same time matriculation certificate which was admittedly produced by the petitioner at that time available with the University/service book discloses the date of birth as 1-6-1951 and on the basis of such certificate, letter of University was issued to her for encashment of LPR. It is, therefore, not understandable or acceptable that such contradictory entry was authorizedly made in the record at some appropriate time. In this scenario no reliance on these doubtful entries can be placed and the possibility of manipulation in the University record also cannot be ruled out.
15. Lastly, the question of maintainability based on the ground that the respondent University has no statutory rules, considering the ratio of case-law cited at the bar, also casts serious doubt about the maintainability of this petition on this account.