P L D 1988 Lahore 658 (PLP)

ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.‑‑The present Civil Revision Petition No.34‑D of 1981 and Civil Revision Petitions No.1971‑D of 1983 26‑D of 1987 and 237‑0 of 1987 (No 198‑D of 1984 of Bahawalpur Bench), involving determination of common questions of law, are proposed to be disposed of by this judgment. The relevant circumstances and events giving rise to each petition need to briefly narrated. Civil Revision Petition No.34‑D of 1981

2. Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam Bora, respondent 1, a practicing Advocate with his place of business at Gujrat, passed his Matriculation Examination of the University of tile Punjab, petitioner, in 1946 under Roll No.25072. In his admission form he entered the 12th of April, 1926, as his date of birth which was incorporated in his Matriculation Examination Certificate issued by the University. On the 7th June, 1977, he instituted suit for a declaration that his correct date of birth was the 15th March, 1927, and not the 12th April, 1926, as entered in the matriculation Examination Certificate and for the issuance of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner and the Province of the Punjab, respondent 2, which was impleaded as defendant 1, to correct his date of birth in the said certificate.

3. The petitioner University controverted respondent 1's averments and maintained that his date of birth as given in the Matriculation Examination Certificate was correct. Apart from taking exception to the maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court the petitioner pleaded the bar of limitation and estoppel and contended that according to the decision taken by tile Syndicate of the University it could not legally entertain any application for change of date of birth after December‑, 1961. Respondent 2 adopted the written statement filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, seized with the trial of the suit, was not favourably impressed with the petitioner's objection relating to the sustainability of ‑ the suit, jurisdiction of the Court, limitation and estoppel. He found, on the basis of the entries made in the register of births of the Municipal Committee of Gujrat copy Exh P.1, that the true date of birth of respondent I was the 15th 'March, 1927. Therefore, he decreed the suit vide his judgment of the 3rd June, 1978. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the learned trial Court was. dismissed by the learned Additional. District Judge, Gujrat, on the 6th March, 1980. Respondent 2; did not go in appeal. Civil Revision Petition No.1971‑D of 1983.

5. Doctor lkram‑ul‑Haq, respondent 1, the then Medical Superintendent of the District Headquarters Hospital, Muzaffargarh, passed his Matriculation Examination of the University of the Punjab, petitioner, in 1941 under Roll No. 17457. His date of birth as given in the University Matriculation Examination Certificate was the 1st January, 1924. He claimed that the said date of birth was not correct and that his true date of birth according to the records of the Municipal Corporation of Multan (where he was born) was the 3rd July, 1924. On the 4th January, 1983, he instituted, suit in the Civil Court at Muzaffargarh for grant of mandatory injunction against the petitioner for entering the 3rd of July, 1924, as his date of birth in its records and for declaring the lst of January, 1924, as his date of birth to be incorrect.

6. The petitioner resisted the suit almost on the same lines as it had taken while contesting the suit of Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam Bora, respondent 1, in the first mentioned revision petition. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, formed the view that respondent 1 was born on the 3rd July, 1924, which was entered as his date of birth in the register of births of Multan Municipality, whose copy is Exh P.I. Brushing aside the petitioner's objections he decreed respondent 1st suit on the 25th July, 1983. The petitioner University as well as the Government of the Punjab, respondent 2, preferred separate appeals against the decision of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh. The appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on the 26th October, 1983. Civil Revision Petition No.26‑D of 1987

7. Rana Asghar Ali alias Muhammad Asghar, respondent, is an employee of the National Bank of Pakistan. He passed his Matriculation Examination of the University of the Punjab, petitioner 2, held in the year 1942 under Roll No.16020. According to him his date of birth had been inadvertently wrongly recorded in his Matriculation Examination Certificate as the 10th April, 1927, whereas he was actually born on the 22nd March, 1929, as was borne out by the record of the Municipal Committee, Gujrat. He said that he was not himself aware of discrepancy in his date of birth and had come to know of it only on the 28th March, 19,84, when he, had an opportunity of consulting the record of the Municipal Committee, Gujrat, in connection with some domestic matter. He approached the University for getting the date of birth corrected but the University declined to entertain his application. On the 30th July, 1984, he instituted suit against the University of the Punjab and its Registrar, petitioners, praying for passing of a decree declaring his date of birth to be the 22nd March, 1929, and not the 10th April, 1927, and directing the University to correct his date of birth accordingly. in the Matriculation Examination Certificate.

8. The petitioners fought out the suit almost on the same grounds on which they had resisted the above referred to two suits of Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam Bora and Doctor lkram‑ul‑Haq. The respondent produced before the learned trial Court of the Civil Judge, Lahore, copy of the extract of the register of births of Municipal Committee, Gujrat, Exh P2, indicating that his date of birth was the 22nd March, 1929, which the learned Judge accepted to be his true date of birth. Rejecting the petitioner's objections he decreed the respondent's suit on the 12th April, 1986. The petitioner's appeal against his decision was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on the 31st July, 1986. Civil Revision Petition No.237‑D of 1984 (No.198‑D of 1984 of Bahawalpur Bench)

9. Syed Ghaus Muhammad Shah, respondent, . passed his ,matriculation Examination of the University of the Punjab, petitioner, under Roll No. 17659 from S.A. High School, Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, in the year 1933. In the Matriculation Examination certificate issued to him by the petitioner University the 15th of October, 1918, was mentioned as his date of birth. As stated by the respondent he approached the Sajjadah Nasheen of the Holy Darbar of Hazrat Sher Shah Syed Jalal Bukhari of Uch Sharif, Tehsil Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, to issue a sanad required as a proof of belonging to Syed Bukhari family of Ch Sharif in connection with the marriage of his son and came to know that the pedigree table of the family revealed that the date of birth of his elder brother, Syed Ghulam Mohyuddin Shah, who had died in childhood, was the 15th October, 1918 and that of his own was the lst March, 1922. According to him his date of birth had been erroneously given in the Matriculation Examination Certificate as the 15th October, 1918, which in fact was the date of birth of his late elder brother. He averred that he had approached the petitioner University for correction of his date of birth in the certificate but the latter had refused to do so two days back and, therefore, he had to take resort to suit which was instituted on the 22nd August, 1977. The suit was tried ex parte against the petitioner which did not choose to enter appearance. The learned Trial Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, was not prepared to accept respondent I's evidence at face value and consequently dismissed the suit on the 10th January, 1982. However, the respondent succeeded in appeal before the learned District Court, Bahawalpur. By his judgment of the 11th May, 1983, the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, reversed the decision of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit. The appeal, like the suit, was heard ex parte because the petitioner failed to put in appearance before the learned appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge relied upon the evidence produced by the respondent, especially the pedigree table of Bukhari Syeds of Uch Sharif (whose extract is Exh PI), kept through generations by the Sajjadah Nasheen of Darbar‑i‑Alia of Ch Sharif, to ascertain the date of birth of the respondent as the Ist of March, 1922,

10. Feeling aggrieved the University of the Punjab has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to impugn the validity of the judgments and decrees secured by the various respondents in their favour. The Revision Petition No.237‑D of 1984 (Civil Revision Petition No.198‑D of 1984 of Bahawalpur Bench) was filed by the University of the Punjab after an inordinate delay. However, in view of the importance of the points raised in this as also in other petitions we are inclined to condone the delay.

11. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner revolved around the point that the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab had decided that the University would not entertain any application for change of date of birth in any circumstances whatsoever after December, 1961, and that this decision of the University was, in view of the provisions of section 48‑A of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 (Punjab Act IX of 1973), immune from challenge in any Court by a suit or otherwise and since the University could not act in violation of its own decision no directions could be issued to it by any Court for correcting the date of birth of any person including the respondents. In this connection he drew our attention to extracts of the minutes of the proceedings of the meetings of the Syndicate and the Committee appointed by it which are reproduced below:‑ "Proceedings of a meeting of the Committee appointed by the Syndicate to go into the question of change in dates of birth held in the Syndicate Room, Hailey Hall, Lahore, on Saturday, the 24th October, 1956 at 10.00 a.m. Present (1) Professor Taj Muhammad Khayal. (in the Chair) (2) Mr. Aqa Bedar Bakht. (3) Dr Kazi Saeed-ud-Din (4) Mr. Siddiq Ahmad Khan, Assistant Registrar (General). The Committee examined the question very carefully and after a good deal of discussion confirmed the following procedure for change of dates of birth which had already been laid down by the present Vice‑Chancellor:‑ (1) Only the date of birth as entered in the Register of the School which the person had first joined be accepted after verification from the actual Admission and Withdrawal Register of the School concerned as a proof for correction. (2) If the entry of date of birth on first joining a School is reported to be incorrect then the entry in the Municipal Birth Register be accepted provided a copy of all the entries in the Register is supplied; provided further that the name of the candidate and the name of the father of the candidate are clearly mentioned in the entries. This entry should be accepted only after having it confidentially verified from the local body concerned. In case of entries from India, verification should be obtained through the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India. The Committee also felt that since the Matriculation Examination had been taken over by the Board of Secondary Education, the University need not continue indefinitely entertaining cases of changes in dates of birth. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the University should announce that after December, 1960, the University would not entertain any application for change in date of birth in any circumstances whatsoever. All persons whose dates of birth were recorded in the Matriculation Examination held by the University and who felt that there was some mistake in this entry must apply for change before the expiry of the above‑mentioned date. SIDDIQ AHMAD KHAN Assistant Registrar (General) Confirmed. Taj Muhammad Khayal Chairman, 4th November , 1959. Copy of paragraph 19 from the Proceedings of a meeting of the Syndicate ' of the University of the Punjab, held on 17 November, 1959.

19. Proceedings of a meeting of the Committee appointed by the Syndicate to go into the question of changes in dates of birth held on 24th October, 1959 (Appendix V). The Syndicate, at its meeting held on 30th September, 1959, had agreed with the views of Mr. Aqa Be dar Bakht that as no definite rules had been laid down by the University for allowing changes in dates of birth the privilege was being misused by the public. A Committee consisting of Dr.Kazi Saeed‑ud‑Din Ahmad, Prof. Taj Muhammad Khayal and Mr. Aqa Bedar Bakht was appointed to go into the question and after examining some of the cases, to evolve a formula according to which necessary changes in dates of birth be made in future. The Committee met on 24th October, 1959, and its proceedings had already been circulated to the members. Resolved to accept the recommendations made therein. Copy of paragraph 17 from the Proceedings of a meeting of the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab, held on 17th June. 1961.

17. Question of entertaining the application of Mst. Sharifa Begum for correction in her date of birth. The Vice‑Chancellor explained that the Syndicate, at its meeting held on 17th November, 1959, accepted the recommendations made by its Sub‑Committee that since the Matriculation Examination had been taken over by the Board of Secondary Education, the University' should not entertain any application for change in. date of birth in any circumstances whatsoever after December, 1960. This was given due publicity and no application was entertained after that date. The Vice‑Chancellor, however, recently received a request in respect of a lady whose husband had been suffering from Tuberculosis and had been admitted to a Sanatorium, praying that application for correction in the date of her birth be entertained as a special case. This lady had been admitted to the Senior Vernacular Course in the Convent High School, Renala, provisionally subject to correction in the date of her birth in the Matriculation Examination from 1‑12‑1922 to 24‑4‑1927. After discussion, resolved that the last date for receipt of applications for correction in the date of birth be extended to the end of December, 1961, and necessary publicity be given to the decision accordingly."

12. In order to show that the Syndicate of the University was competent to make the decision the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to sections 14 and 21 of the Punjab University Act of 1954 (Punjab Act XVI of 1955), in force (now repealed) when the Syndicate took the decision and to the parallel provisions of sections 22 and 26 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973. Section 14 of 1954 Act declared the Syndicate to be an authority of the University and section 21 described the Syndicate to be the Executive Body of the University. Section 22 of 1973 Act is couched in the same language as was section 14 of 1954 Act. Section 26 of the Act in force, besides mentioning the Syndicate to be the Executive Body of the University, enumerates its powers and duties. Clause (bb) of subsection (2), especially referred to by the learned counsel, empowers the Syndicate 'to regulate, determine and administer all other matters concerning the University and to this end exercise all other powers in this behalf not specifically mentioned in this Act and the Statute'.

13. Section 48‑A of the 1973 Act which, was ' added by the University of the Punjab (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (Punjab Ordinance XXII of 1978), on the 15th November, 1978, placing a bar on the suits reads as under,‑ "All acts done, orders passed or proceedings taken by the University in good faith shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court by a suit or otherwise."

14. Elaborating his argument the learned counsel contended that the action of the Syndicate fixing the target date beyond which no applications for correction of date of births were to be received was a purely executive or administrative function which Syndicate was well within its powers to perform. The learned counsel submitted that the decision of the Syndicate, which was an authority and the Executive Body of the University, would be taken to be that of the University and as it had been made in good faith it could not be assailed in any Court. He went on to say that there was no legal duty cast upon the University to correct the dates of birth of the respondents. He said that after 1961 the University had corrected dates of birth only in three cases‑‑One from India and the other two in obedience to the ex parte decrees passed by the Civil Court.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents reading from the proceedings of the meeting of the Syndicate of the University held on the 17th November, 1959, pointed out that the Committee appointed by the Syndicate was to go into the question of changes in dates of birth and after examining some of the cases was required to evolve a formula according to which necessary changes in the dates of birth were to be made in future and that the Committee had no mandate to suggest that entertainment of applications for changes in dates of birth should altogether be stopped in future. It was submitted that the Committee acted beyond the ambit of its authority and. Its recommendations for non‑entertainment of applications could not have been accepted and endorsed by the Syndicate and if the Syndicate had blindly proceeded to act upon such recommendations its action could not be said to have been taken in good faith. The learned counsel asserted, and this fact was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the power to make corrections in the dates of birth vesting in the Pro‑ Vice‑ Chancellor as per serial No. 6 of his administrative powers found at page 593 of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab still existed intact. They maintained that such a power existed for the purpose of being exercised and used in deserving cases. It looks rather strange that though the Pro‑Vice‑, Chancellor continues to enjoy the power of correcting the dates of birth yet by the decision of the Syndicate the door for entertaining applications for correction of dates of birth has been completely shut It is axiomatic that power is for wielding for the purpose for which it is given and not for keeping it in inactive or extinguished state Retention of power till today by the Pro‑ Vice‑ Chancellor would make no sense if he were not to exercise it at all. The University could not disable itself from exercising its power for all time to come ‑ It must be prepared to consider a legitimate case if its circumstances warrant special treatment. It cannot be said that even a genuine case demanding correction of date of birth could not arise after December, 1961. Point blank refusal to receive any application for A correction of date of birth even in a genuine and deserving case would amount to shirking to perform duty and deliberately avoiding to exercise the power enjoyed by the officer of the University. It this happens the action or rather inaction on the part of the University would lose the aura of good faith as also immunity from attack on Court proceedings under section 48‑A of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, and the aggrieved person can very well approach the Civil Court for redress of his grievance. The Civil Court being Court of plenary jurisdiction will certainly grant relief in respect Of the rights of the aggrieved. In the circumstances the respondents having been improperly forbidden by the University to make any approach for seeking relief which it could otherwise grant had no option but to knock the door of the Court of law which, as already observed, was competent to hear their cause and give their due.

16. The facts of the case Ghulam Haider v. Director of Education, Lahore Region, Lahore 1971 S C M R 325, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners for non‑ interference by this Court with the dates of birth of the respondents already recorded in their Matriculation Examination Certificates, are different and distinguishable from those of the respondents' cases. In the precedent case Ghulam Haider's date of birth, when he joined service in the Education Department, was recorded in his service book as the 7th February, 1916. More than twenty years later he applied to the Director of Education for correction of his date of birth to the 7th February, 1919. The Director did not oblige him and he moved the Provincial Government which also declined to change his date of birth. He agitated the matter in writ jurisdiction of this Court contending, inter alia, that the date of birth given in his Matriculation Examination Certificate was not conclusive and that he ought to have been heard in support of his representation. His writ petition was dismissed by this Court as proceedings pertaining to representation were considered to be of administrative nature and he was observed not to have any right to be heard by the Director of Education or by the Provincial Government. On merits the Court remarked that it was not obligatory on the part of the Government to change the date of birth of the petitioner after a lapse of more than two decades. . According to Rule 7.3 contained in Chapter VII of Volume I of the Punjab Financial Rules and instructions issued thereunder, a Government servant can apply for correction of his date of birth as recorded in his service book within two years from the date of entry into Government service. If he applies after the lapse of the prescribed period the Government is not bound to act on his application or representation. As Ghulam Haider had moved for correction of his date of birth long after the prescribed period of two years, he was said to have no legal right which the High Court could enforce by issuing a writ.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that if the Civil Court was held to have jurisdiction to try and decide the respondents' suits, the findings touching the respondents' dates of birth were not open to exception and no interference therewith was called for.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not lay much stress on estoppel. Any change of date of birth would not alter the University's position to its detriment. The respondents could not be held to be estopped from seeking correction of their dates of birth. 19 ‑ The period of limitation for filing the suits in hand is admittedly. regulated by Article 120 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act , 1908, which prescribes six years' period commencing from the limit ; when the right to sue accrues. The right to sue would have, accrued to the respondents and they were to have recourse to the Court of law when they had acquired knowledge of their true dates of birth or when they had felt aggrieved with the ‑wrong entries touching dates of birth. The respondents' suits, in view of the circumstances of the cases, were well within time and could not be said to be time‑barred.

20. In view of the above discussion we do not find any force in the revision petitions which we dismiss leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./U-23/L Revisions dismissed.