IQBAL AHMED KASI, J. The instant Constitutional Petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), carries the following prayer clause: "It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously: a. Declare the impugned notification dated 18/06/2021 illegal, void ab-initio, unconstitutional and issued without any lawful authority and having declared the same as such, the same be set aside, further directions be issued to official respondents to mention the age of respondent No.3 as 07/05/1963. b. Call for record of Civil Suit No. 708/2006 and the judgment and decree dated 18/09/2006 be set aside as the same was passed without any jurisdiction through void order. c. Grant any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit considering the circumstances of this case.
That shall meet the ends of justice.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent No.3 was appointed as Deputy Director B- 18 in Agriculture Department and as per record, provided by hint his date of birth was mentioned as 07/05/1963. Initially, the respondent No. 1, issued notification of provisional seniority list dated 22/01/2019, wherein, the date of birth of the respondent No.3 was mentioned as 07/05/1968 instead of 07/05/1963. The petitioner raised objection upon insertion of incorrect age of respondent No.3 by way of filing written complaint, whereupon, the respondent No.2 while considering the objections raised by the petitioner, issued a corrigendum, whereby the age of respondent No.3 was corrected to its original position as 07/05/1963, but again vide notification dated 18/06/2021 ('the impugned notification') issued by the respondent No.2, the date of birth of the respondent No.3 has wrongly been mentioned as 07/05/1968 instead of 07/05/1963. It is the case of the petitioner that since he raised objection upon the impugned notification to mention correct date of birth of the respondent No.3, but no heed was paid to his request, hence this petition.
3. After notice, learned AAG appeared on behalf of official respondents, whereas, the respondent No.3 is being represented by Mr. Ahmed-ur-Rehman, Advocate, filed parawise comments/counter affidavit on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and controverted the claim of the petitioner and contended that the Instant petition is not maintainable on the ground that there is an efficacious and alternate remedy available to the petitioner, contained under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is apparent on the face of the record that the respondent No.3 was initially appointed as Deputy Director (BPS-18) in Agriculture Department with date of birth as 07.05.1963 and several seniority lists were issued by the Agriculture and Cooperative Department, in which the date of birth of respondent No.3 was mentioned as 07.05.1963. Record further reveals that the date of birth of respondent No.3 mentioned in his Educational Certificates as well as Service Book at the time of induction in Government Job is 07.05.1963. The respondent No.1 mentioned the age of respondent No.3 in the Notification/Seniority List, dated 22.01.2019, as 07.05.1968 instead of 07.05.1963. The objections upon the Notification dated 22.01.2019 were filed. The respondent No.2 considering the objections, issued corrigendum dated 10.03.2021, whereby, the age of respondent No.3 was corrected to its original position i.e. 07.05.1963. It appears that the respondent No.2 issued the impugned notification on 18.06.2021, whereby, again the date of birth of respondent No.3 has been mentioned as 07.05,1968 instead of 07.05.1963.
5. Before dilating upon the merits of the case, we have firstly to decide the question of jurisdiction of this Court in the instant matter. Jurisdiction of any forum, Court or tribunal holding any proceedings is always the core question. It is therefore, obligatory for officers presiding over such fora to determine the question of their jurisdiction whenever some doubt exists or is expressed about it, irrespective of the stage of the proceedings at which such an objection is raised. It is true that as a general rule, a person would not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, if an adequate remedy was available to him to seek redress of his grievance. But then this is also equally true that such was not an inflexible rule of law, not subject to any exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held more than once that a writ of certiorari for instance, could be granted, despite availability of an alternate remedy, where, for the example, the impugned order was ex facie without lawful authority or where it was a case of lake or absence of or even excess of jurisdiction. Reference may be made to the case of Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan (PLD 1972 SC 279).
6. Now adverting to the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that as stated above the respondent No.3 filed an application for the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) in Balochistan Public Service Commission, in the year 2005. After appointment, the Department maintained his Service Book and at the time of induction in the Government Job, his date of birth was mentioned as 07.05.1963. The respondent/department time and again issued seniority lists, wherein too, the date of birth of respondent No.3 was mentioned as 07.05.1963. Record further shows that the respondent No.1 in violation of applicable law. and Rules, particularly, Rule 12-A of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, altered the age of respondent No.3, via Notification dated 22.01.2019, upon which certain objections were filed and in result whereof, the respondent No.2 issued a corrigendum dated 10.03.2021, whereby, the age of respondent No.3 was corrected to its original position as 07.05.1963.
7. It may not be out of place to mention here that the respondent No.3, filed a Civil Suit bearing No.78 of 2006, before the Civil Judge-IV, Quetta, who vide order dated 18.09.2006, passed ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner and on the strength of said ex-parte decree, the respondent No.3, modified the Secondary School Certificate ('SSC') of the petitioner and issued a revised Secondary School Certificate to the C petitioner on 25.06.2008. It is worthwhile to mention here that the respondent No.3 participated in the SSC examination in the year 1982 and revised certificate was obtained by him in the year 2008, which shows delay of approximately 26 years. It may be noted that civil servants seek correction of their date of birth by filing a civil suit for declaration in Civil Courts, but in most of such cases, the Provincial Government is not impleaded as a party and decree is obtained. They then approach the departmental authorities and seek correction of dates of birth in service record. Through this entire exercise, they aim to remain in service beyond age of superannuation. It may be noted that such undue extension in Service results is causing adverse effects on the prospects of promotion of other officers/officials, who are, otherwise eligible.
Needless to say that even if promotion is not considered to be vested right of any civil servant, a legitimate exception of promotion to higher rank comes to reside in the minds of eligible persons. It has been observed that the departmental authorities are completely oblivious of law in this regard and failed to take notice of a similar question that decree is binding only, to the parties to the suit and not on a stranger. Every person/authority not impleaded in the array of dependents is a stranger. In this respect reference can be placed to the case of M.R. Khalid v. Chief Secretary Punjab (1994 SCMR 1633), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, has held that: 'Mere fact that civil servant was able to obtain a decree from civil court for correction of date of birth did not advance his case for the Government was not a party to that civil suit brought by him'.
8. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Niaz Akbar v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (2002 SCMR 992), wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court, seized off the similar matter pertaining to binding nature of such decrees. The Hon'ble Court laid down as follows: "Employee after a period of 13 years of issuance of his matriculation certificate had filed a declaratory decree which he had procured without impleading the commission as a party, wherein, he had taken a job on the basis of such document. Sanctity would be given to the employee's date of birth given by him 13 years prior to the date of securing decree in this regard at the time of his appointment in the Commission. According to Rule 116 of General Financial Rules of Central Government, only clerical error in birth certificate could be rectified. No right could accrue to a party on the basis of an order passed in oblivion of the rules. Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition in circumstances."
9. It is the duty of every court to first determine its jurisdiction then proceed ahead, because any order passed without jurisdiction would be void ab-initio and nullity in the eye of law. An order without jurisdiction is void and binds nobody. Such order neither creates nor recognizes any right or liability and no legal incidents attached to it. It is as if was never made. In this respect reference can be made to the case of Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan through Ministry of Finance (PLD 2005 SC 842) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that: "Question of jurisdiction of a forum is always considered to be very important and any order passed by a court or forum, having no jurisdiction, even if it is found to be correct on merits, is not sustainable. Jurisdiction of Court lays down a foundation stone for a judicial or a quasi-judicial functionary to exercise its powers/authority and no sooner the question of jurisdiction is determined in negative, the whole edifice, built on such defective proceedings, is bound to crumble down."
10. In order to dwell on the principles advised in different Rules books, providing a path, alteration in the date of birth within or after two years of initial appointment or at any point of time, we will embark upon 'The Balochistan Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion And Transfer) Rules 1973', which is under: 'The date of birth of civil servant once recorded at the time of joining Government Service shall be final and no alteration therein shall be permissible, except, where a clerical mistake occurs in recording the date of birth in Service record.
Provided that, no request of civil servant on this ground shall be entertained after a period of two years from the date of such entry in his service record; and all such cases shall be decided by the Appointing Authority, on the recommendation of Enquiry Committee".
In view of the discussion made herein above, we are inclined to allow the instant petition, set aside the impugned Notification dated 18.06.2021, and order and decree dated 18.09.2006, passed by Civil Judge-IV, Quetta, being illegal, void ab-inito, unconstitutional and without any jurisdiction.