GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, J.--This Intra-Court Appeal has been directed against order dated 24-9-1998 by which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was recommended by the Punjab Service Commission to be appointed as Inspector in Punjab Police after having been found eligible and selected through a competitive examination held in November, 1997. His recommendation so made was withdrawn by respondent No,1 vide order dated 15-7-1918 on the ground that the appellant after date of submission of application, submitted revised Matriculation Certificate with revised date of birth changing it from 1-1-1977 to 10-10-1976 along with Revised National Identity Card No, 294-76-321436 and Domicile Certificate No,7664, dated 13-11-1997 and as according to the policy of Commission date of birth, which exists on documents/certificates filed at the time of submission of application is treated as final and since the date of birth originally mentioned by the petitioner was 1-1-1997 and not 10-10-1976 as such he was not eligible to apply for the post of Police Inspector because he was under age by two months and 11 days..
3. Learned counsel contended that the allegations levelled in show-cause notice issued by the respondent have not at all been discussed as there is no allegation to the effect that the appellant furnished any forged document and has in any manner manoeuvered his eligibility. It is further contended that as there is no allegation of non-authenticity of Birth Certificate and that the appellant has passed written and oral test and was recommended by respondent No, 1 for appointment, therefore, the withdrawal order is without any legal justification.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported the impugned order.
5. The learned Judge in Chamber while dismissing the writ petition of petitioner in limine was of the view that the question as to date of birth is question of fact, which question is not normally determined by this Court. No exceptional reasons were shown necessitating holding of factual inquiry.
6. Admitting note of the I.C.A. dated 19-10-1999 reads as under: 'Contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that there was factual inquiry called for in the case. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel, on the face of the record it Was evident that the date of birth of the petitioner was 10-10-1976."
Question regarding date of birth of the appellant stands decided by the competent forum. The matter was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee in its pre-scheduled meeting and the application for correction of date of birth was submitted on 9-10-1997, which is before the closing date i,e, 20-10-1997, The requisite correction was made on 22-10-1997. Therefore, there was no factual controversy before the learned Single Judge as the same stands resolved by competent forum. Admittedly, the appellant has passed written and oral test and was recommended for appointment and there is no finding of any misconduct or corrupt practice against the appellant.
The stand of the respondent that the appellant could not submit revised documents after the closing date as it is against the policy of Punjab Public Service Commission, is without substance.
The learned A.A.-G. has failed to quote any particular Rule which prohibits the appellant to provide his revised particulars after the closing date and such revised particular are not accepted by the P.P.S.C. The appellant can obtain revised documents after getting some wrong entries corrected in accordance with law, which the appellant has done in this case.
7. In view of the above discussion this appeal is allowed and the order impugned in the writ petition is declared illegal and of no legal effect.