2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Writ Petition No. 13049 of 2003, decided on 23rd September, 2003.

S.4

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Appointment

Age, determination of

Authority invited applications from suitable candidates for appointment against vacant post of Patwari and maximum age limit prescribed was 35 years

Petitioner had topped the merit list, but was not allowed interview by the Authority on account of his being overage according to his Matriculation Certificate

Contention of petitioner/candidate was that according to his Birth Certificate he was under 35 years of age and he fell within prescribed age limit and Authority had illegally relied upon Matriculation Certificate

Validity

Contention of petitioner was repelled because Matriculation Certificate had been submitted by petitioner himself and until and unless, the entry of age was corrected by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in accordance with law, date mentioned therein would be considered to be his date of birth. Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 2003. In May, 2003, respondent No.1 invited applications from the suitable candidates for the appointment against the vacant post of Patwari. The minimum qualification was Matriculation and the maximum age limit prescribed was 35 years. The petitioner inter alia applied for the job, according to him, he has toped the merit list, but has not been allowed the interview by the respondents on account of his being overage The decision of the respondents is based upon the Matriculation Certificate, in which, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 5-4-19,68, which means that he is above 35 years. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, according to the Birth Certificate or the petitioner, his date of birth is 8-12-1968 and therefore, he falls within the prescribed age limit, resultantly, respondent No.1 has illegally relied upon the Matriculation Certificate and ignored the birth I certificate.

2. I am afraid, this contention has no force, because the Matriculation Certificate had been submitted by the petitioner himself and until and unless, the entry of the age is corrected by the Board or Intermediate and Secondary Education in accordance with law, 5-4-1968 was the date of birth of the petitioner, which rightly has been taken into consideration by respondent No.1. Moreover, the Birth Certificate, on which the petitioner has relied, has not been appended with this petition. Resultantly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned action of the respondent calling for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Dismissed. H.B.T./I237/L Petition dismissed,