1. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--By this petition the petitioner has impguned the action of respondent No, 1 to substitute respondent No, 2's date of birth 1-9-1920 by 1-9-1934. The case of the petitioner is that if the above date of birth of respondent No, 2 would not have been substituted, he would have been entitled to the promotion as respondent No, 2 would have retired from the service upon attaining the age of 60. In our view the question whether the date of birth of respondent No, 2 has been properly substituted is a disputed question of fact which will need recording of evidence inter alia as to the reason as to why the original date of birth was incorrectly given. Mr. Muzaffar-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited any statutory rule which provides the substitution of the date of birth and which might have been violated.
2. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, it will be open to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.