' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in 1960 and his date of birth was mentioned as 15-10-1937. Seniority list was circulated on 20-11-1996 in which the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15-10-1937. The petitioner came to know his date of birth on 20-11-1996 and he verified the same from the Municipal Committee Record that his date of birth is 19-6-1939. On the basis of Municipal Committee Record, he filed an application for correction change of date of birth before the Board of Intermediate and Secondary, Lahore from 15-10-1937 to 19-6-1939. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education after thorough enquiry accepted the application of the petitioner and issued a revised certificate of the Secondary School Examination on 6-10-1997 with the changed date of birth i,e, 19-6-1939. The petitioner filed an application before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Multan for change of date of birth on the basis of changed date of birth in his Secondary School Examination, which was rejected vide order dated 1-10-1997 in the following terms:-- "Umar Hayat Bhatti, Reader to the Court of Mr. Javed Iqbal Khan Jaffar, Civil Judge 1st Class, has submitted application for correction of his date of birth as 19-6-1939 instead of 15-10-1937. The applicant has annexed certificate of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, dated 6-10-1997. The applicant should adopt proper way before the proper forum. The application is considered and rejected."
' Hence, the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No, 1 did not apply his mind and order was not a speaking order. He further argued that the learned District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner without suggesting the proper forum. He further argued that the. Learned District and Sessions Judge decided the application without providing him personal hearing, which is his inherent right as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zakir Ahmad's case "PLD 1965 SC 90". He further argued that by virtue of Article 2A of Constitution, it is an inherent right of the petitioner that his application be decided after providing him personal hearing. He relied upon PLD 1987 SC 304, PLD 1988 SC 138. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that it is vested right of the petitioner that the date of birth be duly corrected by the respondent No,2 which showed he corrected accordingly by respondent No,1. He further urged that technicalities should be avoided to advance the ends of justice. He relied upon "PLD 1963 SC 382", "PLD 1985 SC 345" "PLD 1992 SC 1974". He further argued that in parawise comments, respondent No,1 has taken a stand that the petitioner approached the respondent No,1 after 2 years, therefore, his application was time-barred. He relied upon the following judgments: ' PLD 1988 Lahore 658; 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1041; 1997 PLC (C.S.) 799 and 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1122.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, contended that the petitioner himself mentioned his date of birth at the time of joining the service as 15-10-1937 in words and figure. He further relied upon the instructions issued by the Government of the Punjab, Service General Administration and Information Department, dated 13-11-1984 and the relevant para. 4 of the instructions is reproduced hereunder:-- "It has been observed that the Audit Department refused to admit change in the date of birth of retired Government servants even if that is disadvantageous to them. In order to avoid hardship to the employees who have already retired and in whose record the date of birth is found to have been changed, it is clarified that the date of birth originally recorded should be admitted as the real date of birth irrespective of any evidence to the contrary. In cases where the original date is not legible sanction of Government in SGA & I Department must be obtained after fixing responsibility for mutilation of the original entry and furnishing full justification for acceptance of the charge. The officers in charge of offices and Departments who have custody of service record of the employees working under them must examine Service Books/Rolls of all employees under their charge and ensure that change in question, if any, is taken care of well before the retirement of the concerned employees and necessary action is taken against the persons responsible for tampering with official record. The above officers shall, henceforth, be held personally responsible for unauthorised change of entries in such record."
' He further relied upon Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Financial Rules Volume I, 1953 of the relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:-- "In regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of, or for the purpose of, entry into Government service shall, as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within two years from the date of his entry into Government service, Government, however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of a Government servant at any time against the interest of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the History of Services of a Gazetted Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom."
' He further argued that the petitioner wants to get date of birth changed after about 37 years when the petitioner is at the verge of his retirement. He further argued that date of birth relates to the terms and conditions, therefore, by virtue of Article 212(2) read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is admitted fact that Appointing Authority of the petitioner is respondent No,1, therefore, respondent No,1 was empowered to decide the application of the petitioner but he refused to exercise power vested under the law to respondent No,1 to decide the application of the petitioner in one way or other. I am fortified by the judgment of the "Aslam Bajwa case (PLD 1974 Lahore 545).
It is inherent right of the petitioner that his application be decided by respondent No,1 as envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. It is the duty and obligation of respondent No,1 to decide the same in accordance with law. It is also admitted fact that the application of the petitioner was rejected by mechanical order which cannot be termed as speaking order. I am fortified in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as PLD 1970 Supreme Court 173. It is also admitted fact that the application of the petitioner was decided without providing personal hearing to the petitioner. It is well-known principle of law that principle of natural justice is to be read in each and every statute unless and until it is specially excluded by the law. I am fortified by the judgment of the Humble Supreme Court PLD 1964 SC 451, Nur Ahmad's case (PLD 1964 SC 410). Fazal Rehman's case. The impugned order of respondent No,1 dated 11-10-1997 reveals that it was decided without providing personal hearing to the petitioner, therefore, it is not valid as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zakir Ahmad's case (PLD 1965 SC 90) and (1994 SCMR 2232) Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. PIAC and another's case. The order also reveals that the 'applicant should adopt the proper way before the proper forum but the respondent No,1 failed to point out proper forum, therefore, order is not valid in the eyes of law. The contention of learned A.A.-G. That the petitioner wants to change of his date of birth after 37 years has force on the basis of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as (1995 SCMR 1216; 1995 SCMR 1219; 1971 SCMR 325 and 1991 MLD 824).
' Observation from Khalid's case 1994 SCMR 1633 which is reproduced hereunder: "Though the Government has undoubtedly the power to correct and incorrectly recorded date of birth of a civil servant but the silence of the petitioner over the major portion of his service was as such that he did not meet a favorable decision from the Government. We are, therefore, unable to find out any substance in this petition it is hereby dismissed."
' Mr. Justice late Muhammad Yaqoob Ali observed in Ghulam Haider's case 1971 SCMR 325 and the relevant observation is as follows:-- "There are statutory rules relating to change of date of birth of a Government employee contained in the Punjab Financial Rules, Volume I. As the representation of the petitioner was made long after the prescribed period of two years, he had no legal right which the High Court could enforce by issuing writ petition under Article 98."
5. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No,1, who shall look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order after providing personal hearing to the petitioner without influence of the abovementioned observations strictly in accordance with law.
' What has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the abovementioned observations.