' MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.---This petition is directed against judgment, dated 5th September, 1997 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No,391 of 1996.
2. Relevant facts leading to filing of present petition though brief yet are strange and amazing.
Petitioner joined service in Punjab Constabulary during year 1957 and was subsequently absorbed in the Punjab Police towards 1961. With the passage of time he was promoted and eventually raised to the status of Superintendent of Police. It is an admitted feature hat, according to service record, petitioner was born on 4th May, 1936. Undisputedly, same date of birth was mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate.
3. It is the case of petitioner that he was posted on deputation as Superintendent of Police (Crime), Islamabad in 1995. Here some relatives informed that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded and factually petitions; was about four years younger to his brother Mumtaz Ahmad Kiyani. This created anxiety and he searched the documents. It thus revealed that date of birth of his brother Mumtaz Ahmad was recorded' as 27th October, 1935, which was also supported by entries in National Identity Card. Further inquiries from maternal aunt Mst. Zuhra an and maternal uncle Raja Allah Dad disclosed that petitioner was more than three to four years younger to his brother Mumtaz Ahmad Kiyani, whose date of birth on the documents was explicitly recorded as 27th October, 1935.
Thus, on thorough probe besides details collected from aforementioned two relatives and other sources; the petitioner calculated his date of birth to be 20th July, 1939. Accordingly, an application was submitted to the District Magistrate, Islamabad, for getting his date of birth recorded in the relevant birth register. It appears that such entries were made in the birth register showing the date as 20th July, 1939. Subsequently, on the basis of entries from birth register, petitioner sought rectification with regard to "date of birth", appearing in original Matriculation Certificate. It may be seen that, somehow, concerned authorities from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, changed the entries pertaining to age of petitioner and on 31st March, 1996 issued "duplicate" Matriculation Certificate showing date of birth as 20th July, 1939.
4. Thereafter petitioner moved an application to Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, praying for rectification of his date of birth in the service record. But the request was declined vide order, dated 17th December, 1995. Petitioner' towards 15th January, 1996 submitted a departmental representation, which was also rejected. Thus, aggrieved petitioner challenged aforesaid departmental order before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, through Service Appeal No,391 of 1996, which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment, dated 5th September, 1997. The same has now been assailed by way of petition for leave to appeal.
5. Raja Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court learned counsel for petitioner contended that Service Tribunal had seriously erred in law by relying upon instructions of Punjab Government contained in Circular Letter No,SRO.II (S&GAD) 6-4/75, dated 4th September, 1975 wherein declaration of age at the time of entry into Government service is deemed conclusive unless applied for rectification on cogent ground within two years from date of entry into service. He stressed that conclusions drawn and inference recorded by the Service Tribunal regarding medical possibility about time span between birth of second child is contrary to jurisprudence and without any substance or justification. According to him, amended Matriculation Certificate and other evidence constituted sufficient basis for allowing correction of date of birth in service record, which according to him was wrongly denied, thereby totally misreading the entire material.
6. In the light of above submissions, we have carefully perused the case file. Firstly, it may be seen that details narrated by petitioner for becoming aware about his date of birth and its approximate fixation as 20th July, 1939 is surprising and highly improbable. It is not believable that a senior Government servant, specially in police service, who by virtue of professional acumen and nature of duties is expected to have keen insight and analytical approach, would remain ignorant about himself and basic factor about his date of birth which revealed to him at the fag-end of career whom retirement age was just approaching.
7. On thorough scrutiny we have noticed that service rules regarding correction of age within two years from entry into service are apparently sound and logical. Government servant cannot be normally permitted to rise from deep slumber and dramatically announce change in the date of birth; when about to retire. The Service Tribunai has properly considered all facts and aspects of the case and has assigned cogent reasons for declining the relief. In our opinion, legal position discussed and conclusion drawn by the Service Tribunal for passing impugned judgment do not suffer from any defect, illegality or impropriety. We wish to observe that lately a tendency has developed whereby unwarranted claims, attempting to show errors in "date of birth" are asserted towards retiring age by fabricating or manipulating documents in that behalf. Obviously, such practice must be discouraged and effectively curbed. Additionally, the grievances agitated before us do not make out any substantial questions of law having public importance.
' For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.