' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---We have heard the petitioner, Syed Iqbal Haider, who has appeared in person. We have also heard learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, who has appeared in pursuance of Court Order dated 27-4-1998. The Registrar has produced the official record regarding the age of respondent No,2 (Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian), which has been perused by the Court and then returned to the Registrar. The Registrar has also produced attested copies of several documents under cover of a letter of Kamran A. Mian son of respondent No,2, who has come from Karachi and is also present. Original record attested copies whereof have been placed on record is available with the Registrar having been brought by Kamran A. Mian, which has been seen by the Court and then returned to the Registrar. Copies of these documents have also been supplied to the petitioner and also to the learned Attorney-General. In the covering letter it is mentioned by Kamran A. Mian respondent No,2 has gone abroad to attend a conference.
2. The petition is filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by the petitioner impleading Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, and Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian as respondents. In the petition, reference has been made to Article 179 of the Constitution, which reads as under:-- "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until the age of sixty-five years, unless he sooner resigns or is removed from office in accordance with the Constitution."
3. According to the petitioner, date of his birth shown by respondent No,2 is 1-7-1934 but this is incorrect and his actual date of birth is 1st July, 1932, and accordingly respondent No,2 attained the age of 65 years on 30th June, 1997, and as a result he has no legal right to continue as Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of Pakistan after 30th June, 1997.
' It is mentioned in the petition that in the second week of January, 1998, the petitioner had gone to Agra (India) and obtained a true copy of "Scholar's Register and Transfer Certificate Form" relating to respondent No,2, according to which document date of birth of respondent No,2 is 1st July, 1932 and not July, 1934, which according to him has been incorrectly claimed by respondent No,2 to be his correct date of birth. According to the petitioner, he also obtained another certificate dated 21- 1-1998 issued by the School according to which respondent No,2 had his initial schooling in a school in Agra, where he, according to the certificate was a "boarding student" and according to the student register, his date of birth is 1st July, 1932.
' It is further mentioned in the memo. Of petition that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court but the same was dismissed in limine on the ground that the documents on which the petitioner had relied i.e, School's Register and Transfer Certificate Form, Agra were not attested and, therefore, there was no evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the date of birth given by respondent No,2, i.e, 1-7-1934, was wrong. , ' The petitioner now informs that he has relatives in Agra and he had asked them to get copies of the said documents attested by a Notary Public in India and after this was done, the said documents be sent to the petitioner through post. After receiving the documents from Agra, petitioner filed the present Constitutional petition before this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
4. Apart from the official record produced by the Registrar pursuant to orders of this Court showing that the date of birth given by respondent No,2 at the time of his enrolment as Advocate Supreme Court was 1st July, 1934, attested copies of the following documents have been produced by the Registrar, which have been supplied to him by the son of respondent No,2:--
(i) Matriculation certificate issued by University of Sindh on 10th January, 1950, with endorsement on the back of the Certificate by the Registrar of the University.
(ii) Letter of the University of Sindh, dated 21st March, 1998, reproducing item No, 28(vii) and Resolution No,44 passed by the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 15th November, 1952.
(iii) Copy of the minutes of the Syndicate of University of Sindh of its meeting held on 15th November, 1952.
(iv) Copy of the passport issued by the Government of Pakistan to respondent No, 2 on 15th October, 1953.
(v) Copy of page No,77 of the Register of Enrolment of Advocate of High Court of Sindh; (entry No,2125 in this document relates to respondent No,2).
(vi) Copy of National Identity Card of respondent No,2 issued on 25-4-1975.
' It has already been observed that all these attested copies have been brought by the son of respondent No,2 which have been placed on record and, after perusal of the original documents, the same have been returned to him through the Registrar.
5. The first document is the Matriculation Certificate issued on 10th January, 1950, by the Sindh University, according to which respondent No,2 had passed the matriculation examination in March, 1949, and the date of birth as recorded in his application for admission was 16th August, 1932 (and not 1-7-1932 as alleged by the petitioner). At the back of the Certificate, there is an endorsement made by the Registrar of the University of Sindh, Hyderabad dated 19th November, 1952, to the following effect:-- "It has been proved to the satisfaction of the Syndicate that the date of birth of the candidate Mr. Ajmal Mian son of Muhammad Mian as recorded in his application form for admission to the Matriculation Examination is wrong and that his correct birth date is the First day of the month of July of the year one thousand nine hundred thirty four."
' In the said endorsement, reference has been made to the satisfaction of the Syndicate (University of Sindh) regarding date of birth of respondent No,2 and in this context document No,2 is relevant which is, dated 21st March, 1998, of the Registrar, Sindh University addressed to the respondent No,2 in which, with reference to letter 17th March, 1998 of respondent No,2, the Registrar had reproduced Item No, 28(vii) and Resolution No,44 passed by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 15th November, 1952. Item No,28(vii) is "To consider the question of changing the date of birth of Mr. Ajmal Mian son of Muhammad Mian from 16-8-1932 to 1-7-1934" and Resolution No,44 is "Resolved that the date of birth of Mr. Ajmal Mian son of Muhammad Mian be changed from 16-8-1932 to 1-7- 1934".
' Letter dated 21-3-1998 of the Registrar, University of Sindh, also states that he was forwarding a certified copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 15th November, 1952.
' The third document is the copy of Minutes of Syndicate's meeting held on 15th November, 1952, sent by the Registrar of the University and, at page 9 of this document, Item No,28(vii) appears as well as Resolution No,44.
' Document No,4 is copy of the Passport of respondent No,2 issued on 15th October, 1953, by the Government of Pakistan and date of birth in the passport is given as 1st July, 1934.
' Document No,5 is- copy of page 77 of the Register of Enrolment of Advocates of Sindh High Court.
Entry No,2125 in this document relates to respondent No,2 and his date of birth mentioned therein is 1st July, 1934. The last document is the National Identity Card dated 25-4-1975 No, 516-34-180685 of respondent No,2 which gives date of his birth as 1934.
6. The petitioner does not challenge the authenticity of the aforesaid documents, but has submitted that, according to his information and investigation carried out by him, respondent No,2 through an affidavit got his date of birth corrected by the Syndicate University of Sindh. According to the petitioner this change or correction could not be obtained merely on the basis of an affidavit, despite the fact that authenticity of the aforesaid document is not challenged by him.
7. The petitioner first submitted that the question raised by him is of great importance and also involves interpretation and consideration of Article 179 of the Constitution and, therefore, this petition be placed before the Full Bench for hearing.
We are of the view that the only point that has been raised by the petitioner is about the date of birth of respondent No,2 and, as mentioned earlier, according to him, respondent No,2 was born in the year 1932 and not 1934. In our view it is not a matter which requires to be placed before the Full Court for. Hearing. It does not require interpretation or consideration of Article 179 or any other provision of the Constitution.
8. The petitioner then submitted as follows:--
(a) According to the petitioner, respondent No,2 left Agra in 1947 and at that time date of his birth in the record of the School in which he was studying was 1-7-1932.
(b) It was submitted that the change of date of birth from 1932 to 1934 is based only on an affidavit and, despite the fact that the petitioner was not challenging the authenticity of the documents produced before us, change of date from 1932 to 1934 only on the basis of an affidavit was of no consequence and by a Resolution of the Syndicate on such affidavit alone date of birth could not be changed.
(c) Article 179 refers to retirement of the Judges of the Supreme Court on reaching the age of 65 years and spirit of this Article is that the age of 65 years is to be calculated from the actual date of birth which, according to the petitioner, in the case of respondent No,2, is 1932.
(d) The petitioner has also referred to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161) for the submission that this Court can pass any order to do complete justice, and the law as well as the Constitution require that an order should be passed that respondent No,2 had already attained the age of 65 years on 30th June, 1997, and he has ceased to be a Judge or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan from that date.
9. Learned Attorney-General has submitted that the authenticity of the documents produced today has not been challenged by the petitioner, which documents estahlished that, in 1952, date of birth of respondent No,2 was corrected by a Resolution of the Syndicate of the Sindh University which has not been challenged for nearly 46 years; the same cannot be challenged now. It is further submitted by the learned Attorney-General that, in 1952, on the application of respondent No,2 the Syndicate of University of Sindh, after being satisfied that the correct date of birth of respondent No,2 was 1-7-1934, passed a resolution to that effect and since then, in all the documents, date of birth of respondent No,2 is shown as 1-7-1934. According to the learned Attorney-General, these are genuine documents and the petitioner has also not challenged the authenticity of the said documents. It was submitted that no reliance can be placed on the copies of documents which the petitioner has produced.
' It was further submitted by the learned Attorney-General that, according to the Provincial Government Service Rules and Federal Government Service Rules, a Government servant can get corrected his date of birth within two years of joining Government service and thereafter such option is not open to the Government servant.
10. The documents which have been produced before us today as observed, are clear on the point that, as far back as 1952, on the application of respondent No,2, the Syndicate of University of Sindh, after being satisfied, corrected the date of birth of respondent No,2 from 16-8-1932 to 1-7-1934. On the basis of 'this resolution, endorsement was made on the back of the Matriculation Certificate of respondent No,2. The submission of the petitioner that date of birth could not be corrected merely on the basis of an affidavit is misconceived.
The Resolution of the Syndicate does not show that only an affidavit had been , produced before the Syndicate by the respondent No,2, but from the resolution and from the endorsement on the back of Matriculation Certificate it is evident that the Syndicatewas satsified, on the basis of the material produced before the Syndicate that the date of birth on the Matriculation Certificate was wrong and it was corrected to 1-7-1934. In our view, the Syndicate, having taken such decision 46 years ago and consequential entry having been made then, the same is not open to challenge or attack after more than four decades. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition..
11. Reference may also be made to other documents produced today by the son of respondent No,2 through the Registrar which include entries in the Passport issued on 15-10-1953; enrolment of respondent No,2 as Advocate of High Court of Sindh as far back as February, 1957, and copy of the National Identity Card issued on 25-4-1975. All these documents are consistent with the Resolution of the Syndicate of University of Sindh and most of them are part of the public record.
12. We may also refer to the submission made by the learned Attorney-General that, in Government service, an employee cannot make any application for change in his date of birth after two years.
On analogy, such rule should also be followed in judiciary, which otherwise would lead to serious complications, and open a pandora's box. Similarly, authenticity of date of birth recorded in the documents cannot be challenged belatedly, specially beyond the abovementioned , period.
13. On the basis of documents which have been produced by the Registrar of this Court, specially the Resolution of the Syndicate of the University of Sindh in 1952, copies of the documents on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner have no significance and are of no consequence. There is also a doubt about the authenticity of the documents produced by the petitioner which are alleged to be copies of record of a private school in India.
' We find no substance in this Constitutional petition which is hereby dismissed.