1971 PLP 325 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, J.‑The petitioner is holding the post of officiating Head Master, Government High School, Khanpur. When he joined service more than 20 years ago his date of birth was recorded in the service book as 7‑2‑1916. According to that date he was due to retire on 7‑2‑1971 on attaining the age of 55 years. Towards the end of 1969 he made a representation to the Director of Education that his correct date of birth is 7‑2‑1919 and in support of the claim relied on certain evidence which was not accepted by the Director. On the rejection of the representation the petitioner moved the Provincial Government which also refused to modify the date of birth against which the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court contending inter alia that the date of birth given in his Matriculation certification was not conclusive and that he ought to have been heard in support of his representation. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench in the view that the proceedings pertaining to the representation being of administrative nature, the petitioner did not have a right to be heard by the Director of Education or the Provincial Government. The contention that under Article 178 (3) of the 1962‑Constitution the petitioner had a right of appeal was considered untenable on the plain language employed in that Article. On merits the learned Judges remarked that it was not obligatory on the part of the Government to change the date of birth of the petitioner after the lapse of more than two decades. The same grounds are urged in support of the petition for leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. There are statutory rules relating to change of date of birth of a Government employee contained in the Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I As the representation by the petitioner was made long after the r prescribed period of two years, he had no legal right which the High Court could enforce by issuing a writ under Article

98. Mr. Muhammad Ismail appearing in support of the petition tried to argue that Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Financial Rules was repugnant to Article 178 as modified by the Fourth Amendment of the 1962‑Constitution. Under the amended article the petitioner was liable to be superannuated on attaining the age of 55 years. Learned counsel maintained that as the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 7‑2‑1919, his retirement on 7‑2‑1971 was in breach of Article

178. The contention raised is fallacious as Article 178 does not prescribe the mode for determining the date of birth of an employees. As seen above, there are specific rules on the subject of correction of date of birth of an employee. His retirement on 7‑2‑1971 according to his date of birth in the service record which is no longer open to modification is, therefore, in accordance with Article

178. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court. Leave to appeal is refused. Leave refused.