MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant civil revision petition the petitioner, Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad, impugns the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (West), Islamabad, was dismissed. Vide the said judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016, the learned Civil Court had decreed the respondent's suit for "declaration and mandatory injunction."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the respondent's admission form (Exh.D/1) for the Secondary School Examination, and submitted that in the said application form, the respondent (Shahab-ud-Din Mughal) had entered 30.08.1996 as his date of birth; that the respondent was estopped by his words and conduct under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984; that the said admission form contained the respondent's affidavit deposing therein that the entries made in the said admission form were correct; that the said admission form had also been signed by the respondent's father / guardian; that the said admission form had also been signed and stamped by the Principal of the respondent's School (Fauji Foundation Model School Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir); that the said admission form was exhibited before the learned Trial Court; that the impugned judgments and decrees could not have gone against the rules of Board unless the same are held to be violative of the Constitutional provisions; that the suit of the respondent / plaintiff suffers from misjoinder of parties; and that the respondent could not take a position contrary to the one taken by him in the said admission form.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that birth certificate dated 11.04.2012 issued by Municipal Committee, Kotli- Azad Jammu and Kashmir shows that the birth of the respondent was reported with the delay of several years; that the respondent did not produce the register of births in order to prove that his correct date of birth was 30.08.1998; that Child Registration Certificate dated 16.05.2012 issued by National Data Base and Registration Authority (Exh.P/2) had been produced by the respondent; that the said (Exh.P/2) was issued later than issuance of result card by the petitioner; that no witness was produced from the respondent's college / school in order to testify that the respondent's correct date of birth was 30.08.1998; and that the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Vs. Azam Ali Khan (2017 YLR 906). Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the revision petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
4. On the other hand, the respondent was served with a notice and vakalatnama was submitted by Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate on his behalf but neither the learned counsel nor the respondent himself tendered appearance before this Court, therefore the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 28.05.2019 and 30.11.2020. The case was fixed several times after 28.05.2019 and the respondent's counsel was informed through notice pairvi about the date of hearing of the case but neither the learned counsel nor the respondent himself tendered appearance. Today (i.e., 31.01.2023) also no one entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.
5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance.
6. The record shows that on 04.03.2015, the respondent filed a suit for "declaration and mandatory injunction" praying for a declaration that his correct date of birth is 30.08.1998 instead of 30.08.1996 and also to correct his name as Shahab-Ud-Din Mughal instead of Shahab-Ud-Din. Furthermore, the respondent prayed for a direction to the petitioner to incorporate the correction / change in date of birth of the respondent in their records. The petitioner contested the said suit by filing a written statement. After the framing of issues, the respondent tendered evidence copies of (i) birth registration certificate dated 11.04.2012 issued by Secretary Municipal Committee Kotli, Azad Kashmir (Exh.P/1); (ii) Child Registration Certificate dated 16.05.2012; (iii) Family Registration Certificate dated 03.02.2015 both issued by N.A.D.R.A. (Exh.P/2 and Exh.P/3) respectively; and (iv) copy of the respondent's Secondary School Certificate for Annual Examination 2013 (Exh.P/4).
According to Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/3, the respondent's date of birth was 30.08.1998 and his name is mentioned as Shahab-Ud-Din Mughal whereas according to Exh.P/4, his date of birth was 30.08.1996 and his name was Shahab-Ud-Din.
7. The petitioner, in its evidence produced Exh.D/1, which is the respondent's admission form for the Secondary School Certificate (Part-II) Examination. The respondent and his father / guardian had signed this form. In the said form, the respondent's date of birth is stated to be 30.08.1996 and his name is mentioned as Shahab-UdDin. This form also contains an affidavit sworn by the respondent deposing that the particulars in the said form were true and correct. This form was also signed and stamped by the Principal of Fauji Foundation Model School Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
8. The respondent did not dispute the authenticity of Exh.D/1. The respondent's version before the learned lower Courts was that the wrong entry of the respondent's date of birth and name in his admission form for the Secondary School Certificate Examination was caused by an inadvertent mistake. In the said admission form (Exh.D/1), the respondent's date of birth was not only filled in figures but in words as well. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a possibility of an error being committed by the petitioner in recording the respondent's said date of birth in his Secondary School Certificate. Since the admission form (Exh.D/1) was an admitted document, it deserved due weight and credence which has not been given to it by the learned Courts below. The learned Courts below misread the evidence by not appreciating that the admission form (Exh.D/1) had not just been signed by the respondent but also by his father / guardian and the Principal of Fauji Foundation Model School Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The requirement of an endorsement by the head of the institution is to ensure that the entries made in the admission form are correct and are as per the school record of the respondent. The respondent is, therefore, estopped from taking a position contrary to the one taken by him at the time of submission of the admission form for the Secondary School Certificate Examination.
9. It is also well settled that where there is a disparity between the entries in the educational testimonials of a person, and the National Identity Card or Birth Certificate, credence is to be given to the entry of the date of birth in the educational testimonials unless there is cogent and convincing evidence to hold otherwise. In the case of Mohammad Arshad Vs. Noor Ahmad (2008 SCMR 713), credence was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the petitioner's date of birth on her matriculation certificate as compared to his date of birth on his Birth Certificate and National Identity Card.
10. Strong evidence of unimpeachable character is required to change the date of birth entered in a person's educational testimonials. The Courts have to be vigilant and cautious in granting discretionary relief of declaration or permanent injunction in cases where the plaintiffs seek a change in their names or dates of birth.
11. A student and his / her parents have to be very careful, alert and vigilant while disclosing the date of birth at the time of submission of forms for the examination of Secondary School Certificate / Matriculation. The Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education goes with the life of a student as this certificate is the authenticated proof of the student's date of birth. Such a certificate is invariably accepted as a valuable piece of evidence in proof of the date of birth of the person in question throughout his / her career, and Courts attach a high degree of probative value to the certificate, and the date of birth as entered in the certificate is accepted as almost binding.
12. A change in the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate issued by the Board is a serious matter because it involves many consequences and particularly affects the date of retirement etc. In such cases, a Court needs to scrutinize the evidence carefully and interference should be made sparingly and with circumspection. The approach of a Court has to be cautious and not casual.
13. In the case of Saima Iltaf Vs. Principal, Junior Burn Hall Girls College, Abbotabad (2001 CLC 972), it was held that in order to substantiate the contents of a birth certificate, the relevant register where the date of birth is entered has to be produced. In the case at hand, the respondent's birth register was not produced either by the relevant Municipal Committee or by N.A.D.R.A. or its predecessor institution. This is a material lapse in the respondent's case which has not been noticed by the learned Courts below.
14. The reliance by the learned Courts below on the birth certificate issued in the year 2012 i.e., several years after the respondent's birth was also erroneous and in this regard, the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Vs Azam Ali Khan (2017 YLR 906), wherein it has been held that when a birth certificate is not issued in a reasonable time after birth, the entry of the date of birth in such a birth certificate has to be corroborated by producing in evidence the register of births showing the correct date of birth of the person in question.
15. By not requiring the respondent to produce the register of births maintained by the relevant Union Council or authority so as to prove that the date of birth entered in the respondent's birth certificate was correct, the learned Civil Court went against the law laid down by this Court. In the unreported judgment dated 29.06.2015, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.170/2015, titled "Syeda Razia Bukhari Vs. Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad," this Court upheld the concurrent judgments passed by the learned Courts below whereby the petitioner's suit seeking a change in her date of birth entered in her matriculation certificate, was dismissed. This Court did not give issued years after the petitioner's alleged date of birth. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it has been inter alia held as follows:- "4. ... The birth certificate has been tendered in evidence in original which shows the date of reporting the birth of the child is 19.03.2009, however, the register of Union Council or any other documents was not exhibited in evidence to show that the correct date of birth is 05.02.1988. ..."
16. Furthermore, in another unreported judgment dated 27.01.2015, passed in Civil Revision No.538- D/2002 titled "Federal Board Vs. Mustafa Nawaz", this Court held as follows:- "14. ... Moreover, in order to prove the contents of crucial document i.e. birth certificate Ex.P1, it was mandatory to produce and get examined birth register of the concerned union council pertaining to the year 1976-77 for ascertaining correctness and genuineness of the documents, but no such effort was made. There is also no explanation as to why birth certificate was got issued with a delay of more than eighteen years on 2.2.1995."
17. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence on the record and have not given credence to the law laid down by the Superior Courts especially the judgments referred to herein above. Therefore, the instant revision petition is allowed; the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 20.07.2016 and 13.05.2016 passed by the learned Courts below are set-aside; and the respondent's suit for declaration and rectification of the date of birth and name in his matriculation certificate, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.