IJAZ ANWAR, J.---Through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Muhammad Jalal-ud-Din son of Muhammad Shahab-ud-Din, the petitioner, has questioned the rejection of his candidature for the competitive examination of CSS 2015. He has prayed for the following relief:-- "On acceptance of the instant writ petition respondent No,2 may graciously be directed to consider existing date of birth of the petitioner i,e, 18.4.1985 as rectified on his CNIC and educational form for the competitive exam of CSS, 2015, resultantly all act and omission of respondent No,2 with effect to not declare CSS result of the petitioner and rejection of his examination form for the reason of entry of other date of birth on his examination form for the previous year of 2013-14; be declared as void ab-initio, illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and justification, hence; ineffective upon the legal/fundamental/ constitutionally/protected rights of the petitioner. Any such relief which this Hon'ble Court deems proper and just be granted to the petitioner against the respondents keeping in view the circumstances of the case".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to District Chitral. Initially, his date of birth was recorded as 18.11.1984 in his Identity Card and Educational Testimonial. He appeared twice in the competitive examination of CSS in the year, 2013 and 2014 respectively but could not qualify by failing with a little margin of some marks. The petitioner having genuine grievances about his date of birth filed a civil suit for its correction as according to him, it was in conflict with the date of birth recorded in his school record. Accordingly, a decree to this effect for the correction of the date of birth was passed in his favour. The respondent/Commission again invited applications for recruitment to the post in BPS-17. He duly applied, however, vide impugned letter dated 8.9.2015, his candidature was rejected on the ground of being overage; similarly the change made in the date of birth was not accepted. The petitioner has submitted appeal, representation and review before the appellate authorities and when failed to receive any positive response has filed this petition.
3. The respondents were issued notices, they submitted their comments. Relevant paras of the reply are reproduced for convenience as under:-- "That the petitioner cannot invoke the ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court against the answering respondent in presence of alternate statutory remedy provided under subsection (3)
(d) of Section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, where under the petitioner has to file appeal before the High Court therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The Higher Courts have dismissed various writ petitions on these legal objections. Reliance is placed on PLD 1958 SC 437.
In reply to paras 5-6 of the petition, it is submitted that rule 4(iii) of Rules for CE 2015 stipulates as "once a date of birth has been claimed by a candidate and accepted by the commission for the purpose of admission to an examination, no change will be allowed at a subsequent examination or selection."
As the petitioner had already claimed his date of birth as 18.11.1984 for the competitive examination 2013 which was accepted by the Commission, therefore, no subsequent change in date of birth for competitive examination 2015 is ,admissible under the rules. Further FPSC was also not a party in the declaratory suit as alleged by the petitioner, hence his new date of birth as 18.4.1985 was not accepted by the Commission under the rules. Accordingly his age was counted/ calculated w.e.f. his accepted date of birth 18.11.1984 to cut off date 31.12.2014 which comes to 30 years 1 month and 13 days. As he was over age by 01 month and 13 days of the age limit prescribed under the rule 3(i) of Rules for CE 2015 even after allowing two years age relaxation admissible to a candidate of Tribal Areas under rule 3 (ii)(b) of the Rules ibid, therefore, he was rejected by the commission under the rules and he was informed of the same vide impugned letter dated 8.9.2015".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when once the competent court has passed a decree in his favour regarding the correction of date of birth, the respondents were under legal obligation to have considered it. Learned counsel argued that this was the last chance of the petitioner, however, due their inefficiency, the petitioner has been deprived of his prospect of better future. Learned counsel-further argued that he has availed all the alternate remedies before approaching this court and the objection so raised in the comments will have no bearing on the case of the petitioner. He argued that at the most, the instant petition be treated as appeal within the meaning of section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1997.
5. Learned DAG on behalf of Federation on his turn argued that the petitioner cannot be allowed to bye-pass the available remedy of appeal and that writ is only competent where no such alternate remedies are available. He argued that under Rule 4(iii) of the Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS 2015) date of birth once recorded of the candidate and accepted by the Commission for the purpose of examination cannot be allowed to be changed in subsequent examinations or selections. He referred to certain judgments of the Apex Court, wherein any such change in the date of birth were not viewed good.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that the date of birth of the petitioner before its change was 18.11.1984. The petitioner has also appeared in the competitive examination for the year, 2013-14 respectively disclosing his date of birth as 18.11.1984, which was supported by certain documents i,e, Matric Certificate and CNIC, etc. However, when appeared in the CSS Competitive Examination for the year, 2015 the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) considered his previous date of birth according to which he was overage by 01 month and 13 days on the cut off date i,e, 31.12.2014.
8. The court decree correcting the date of birth may be valid in other matters, if referred, if the petitioner applied for some other posts etc. however, in the instant matter, there are specific rules on the subject duly notified on A 27.8.2014 for the competitive examination CSS 2015 and according to Rule 4, the petitioner cannot change his date of birth once accepted by the respondent/ Commission, it is reproduced for convenience as under:-- "Date of Birth. 4 (i). The date of birth accepted by the Commission is that entered in the following documents..
(a) Matriculation Certificate,.
(b) Secondary or Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate;
(c) Certificate of birth from the Principal/Headmaster of the School from where a candidate has passed his/her GEC, '0' level or equivalent examination, showing the date of birth in the School Admission Register;
(d) In case of Christian candidates, Baptismal or birth registration certificate.
(ii) The decision as to which certificate may be accepted for the purpose of date of birth rests with the commission.
(iii)Once a date of birth has been claimed by a candidate and accepted by the Commission for the purpose of admission to an examination, no change will be allowed at a subsequent examination or selection. (Under lines supplied)
9. The August Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No,2184 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2002 while discussing the same proposition held that "the respondent admittedly appeared in the competitive examination twice in 1994 and 1996 conducted by the Commission, as such on the basis of the aforesaid rules, he could not have claimed his new date of birth in the subsequent examination".
Similar proposition regarding the same issue was discussed in C.P. No,1471 of 2002 decided on 16.9.2004. The Apex Court has deprecated such practice of the candidates in maneuvering changes in date of birth to achieve further chances. In Civil Appeal No,86 of 2015 decided on 16.3.2015, the Apex Court held the Examination Rules as valid and applicable to the candidate applying for the examination.
10. Thus, looking on the touch stone of the judgment of the Apex Court that has uphold the rules for the competitive examination about the change in date of birth, we find that the petitioner's case is fit on all fours on the precedent cases of the Apex Court, thus his candidature was rightly rejected.
11.For the aforesaid reasons, we find no substance in the instant writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed.