FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This order shall dispose of Intra-Court Appeal No, 375 of 1996 and Writ Petition No, 5863 of 1997 as they pertain to the same dispute of the date of birth of the appellant/petitioner.
2. The appellant was a member of Police Service of Pakistan having originally joined as a member of P.A. and A.S. in 1961 through the C.S.S. Examination held in 1960 by the Central Public Service Commission. He showed his date of birth as 24-8-1936 in his application form submitted to the Commission in relation to the said examination. When the appellant was about to retire after 35 years of service, he applied to the Establishment Division for change of his date of birth from 24-8- 1936 to 24-8-1940. He had also filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on 30-7- 1995 before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, for the correction of his date of birth.
The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 26-5-1996. The date of birth was changed by the University of the Punjab in the Matriculation Certificate of the appellant in terms of the decree passed by the learned Civil Court.
2-A. The Establishment Division vide their letter dated 26-9-1996 turned down the request of the appellant for the change of his date of birth on the following grounds:--
(a) That it took him over 34 years (he initially joined P.A. and A.S. in 1961) to put in his first application for change of date of birth;
(b) that only one month 10 days were left in his attaining the age of superannuation when he put in his said application;
(c) that he would have passed Matriculation examination (in 1952) at the age of less than 12 years and M.A. at the age of less than in 18 years (1958), if his plea is accepted;
(d) that he would have been under-age (i,e, less than 21 years) in 1960 when he filled the form for the C.S.S. examination which saw his induction in P.A. and A.S's. 1961 batch, if his pleas were to be accepted;
(e) that while applying for C.S.S. - 1960 examination, he himself claimed, with supporting documents, that his date of birth was 24-8-1936;
(f) that his claiming that clearing the Matric examination at the age of less than 12 years is possible, is unconvincing. The Punjab University Gazette merely shows the date of birth of the candidates as recorded by their parents but does not---and cannot---convince anyone that those dates are genuine.
(g) That, if his pleas were to be accepted, his total length of service at the time of superannuation would work out as 38 years 9 months (i,e, l5ecember, 1961 - August, 2000). Since the minimum age when one can enter service (through C.S.S. Examination) is 22 years (it takes one full year for the selection process), his age at the time of superannuation would be at least 60 years 9 months i,e, 38 years 9 months as service plus at least 22 years age at the time of first entry, or at least 9 months beyond the age of superannuation. This further belies his claim for change in the date of birth."
3. The appellant filed Writ Petition No, 1201 of 1996 seeking a direction for the change of his date of birth which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 15-8-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. He has also filed another Writ Petition No, 3863 of 1997 against orders dated 24- 8-1996 and 26-9-1996 by the Federal Government.
4. Mian Abdul Khaliq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent- functionaries of Government of Pakistan were under a legal obligation to correct the date of birth of the appellant and to act in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court and as per duplicate Matriculation Certificate issued by the University of the Punjab.
5. On the other hand, Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan submitted that neither the writ petition nor this Intra-Court Appeal was competent before this Court. The matter essentially related to the terms and conditions of the appellant being a civil servant. It was further pointed out that the Government of Pakistan was not even impleaded as a party in the civil suit filed by the appellant. The judgment and decree obtained by the appellant was a nullity in the eye of law qua the respondents.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for th parties. The appellant has retired from service. He never objected to his date of birth at any time during his service for more than 35 years. It was at the fag-end of his service that he agitated the matter of his date of birth. In his civil suit, the appellant, did not bother to implead the Federation of Pakistan which was necessary party. During all this period, he never objected to the gradation lists which were periodically circulated. In all other official documents, such as, Passport, National Identity Card, etc., he must have shown his date of birth as 24-8-1936. He must have declared his date of birth, as 24- 8-1936 in his Annual Confidential Reports as per Government instructions. In the case of M.R. Khalid v. Chief Secretary, Punjab and another (1994 SCMR 1633), the petitioner-civil servant had taken competitive examination. He declared his date of birth as 2-6-1930 and remained in service for about 35 years. It was observed that the civil servant's name together with his declared date of birth appeared in the gradation lists and civil lists periodically published by the Provincial Government but he did not object to the incorrect publication of his date of birth till a few years before his retirement. It was held that the mere fact that the 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. It was further observed that silence of civil servant over the major portion of his service was such that he did not merit a favourable decision from the Government relating to correction of his date of birth. The relief was declined by the Humble Supreme Court. To the similar effect are the cases of Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Department of Education, Lahore v. Prof. Mst. Jamida Malik and another (1991 MLD 824), Sh. Mumtaz Ali v. Government of Punjab (1991 PLC (C.S.) 1202), Sarfraz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1950), Rashid Ahmad v. Water and Power Development Authority and another (1992 PLC (C.S.) 903), Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri (AIR 1995 SC 850), Union of India and others v.
Kantilal Hematram Pandya (AIR 1995 SC 1349), Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and another (AIR 1995 SC 1499) and Ghulam Haider v. The Director of Education, Lahore Region, Lahore and another (1971 SCMR 325).
7. We have also noticed that the appellant would not have been eligible for appointment if his date of birth which is now being claimed had been shown in the application form before the Central Public Service Commission on the ground of being underage. There were justifiable reasons for the Government to turn down the request of the appellant for the change of his date of birth.
8. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No, 1201 of 1996, the impugned Notification dated 24-8-1996 and the impugned order dated 26-9-1996 passed by the Federal Government do not suffer from any legal or factual error and no exception can be taken thereto.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this Intra Court Appeal and Writ Petition No, 3863 of 1997 which are dismissed with no order as to costs.