2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-10-2009 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.

2. On failure to get altered the date of birth, petitioner approached the learned Service Tribunal by means of appeal and on dismissal, the jurisdiction as conferred upon this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been invoked.

3. Heard Mr. M.W.N. Kohli, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly argued that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention, it is submitted that National Identity Card, Primary School Certificate, Report of Medical Board and age relaxation given by the Chief Minister, Baluchistan have been ignored without any rhyme and reason. It is next contended that the provisions as enumerated in Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 have been misconstrued and misinterpreted causing serious prejudice against the petitioner.

4. We have carefully examined the above mentioned contentions in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The petitioner had joined service on 20-10-1973 and got recorded his date of birth as 20-10-1948 and no request whatsoever was made to get it altered till the age of superannuation. The petitioner 'woke up from a deep slumber after 35 years and no explanation whatsoever could be furnished regarding this silence which speaks a volume about his conduct and genuineness of his claim which has rightly been turned down by the learned Service Tribunal, in view of the provisions as enumerated in Rule 9.7(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 whereby an alteration in date of birth can be sought within two years of the service which could not be done for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Besides that under Rule 12 (A) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Rules, 1979 no such alteration is permissible. It may be mentioned here that Chief Minister has not exercised his discretion in accordance with law and settled norms of justice as no such relaxation in age could have been granted by him which is not in' consonance with the above referred to rules.

5. It is worth mentioning that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved and the conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal, after examination of entire record, could not be regarded as capricious or perverse and no question of law of public importance arose for consideration. In such view of the matter, leave to appeal cannot be granted. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities:

Karamat Hussain v. Province of the Punjab 1982 SCMR 897, Razia Sultana v. Government of Punjab 1981 SCMR 715, M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1980 SC 22, Nisar Ahmad Khawaja v. Muhammad Usman Muhammad Khan Wasan 1980 SCMR 722, Yousaf Hussain Siddiqui v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Peshawar 1976 SCMR 268, Director Food v. Rashid Ahmad 1990 SCMR 1446, Province of Punjab v. Rao Abdul Jalil Khan 1989 SCMR 330, Abdul Razaq v. Province of Punjab 1980 SCMR 876, Muhammad Yaqub Sheikh, District Engineer, District Council, Toba Tek Singh v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and others 1987 SCMR 1354, Director Food, Punjab, Lahore v. Muhammad Yasin Bhatti 1988 SCMR 496.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./A-107/SC Leave refused.