2022 PLP 912 (SCMR)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.

The petitioner seeks leave of this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan whereby the said Court while upsetting the concurrent findings directed the petitioner to change the date of birth of the respondent in SSC/Matric certificate from 5.6.1994 to 5.6.1998.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the documents furnished by the petitioner such as school leaving certificate issued by Iqra Rauza tul Atfal Trust and consequent admission form of Garrison Academy, Quetta, reflected respondent's date of birth as 5.6.1994. The respondent himself provided his date of birth to the petitioner/Board and consequently SS Certificate issued in his favour on 27.6.2014 also carries his date of birth as 5.6.1994. The respondent thereafter challenged the said date by claiming it to be incorrect by filing a declaratory suit. The respondent in order to prove that the petitioner's (sic.) actual date of birth was 5.6.1998, adduced only oral evidence of the witnesses who's statement contains several contradictions and, therefore, was rightly rejected by the two Courts and, therefore, the High Court could not have taken a different view on the basis of same evidence to upset the concurrent findings. It was further, contended that the High Court was influenced by the birth certificate of the petitioner issued by NADRA which recorded his date of birth as 5.6.1998 without noticing that it was obtained on 19.11.2013 just before filing of the suit. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Khaliq and another v. Moulvi Muhammad Noor and others (PLD 2005 SC 962).

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no sooner petitioner was awarded Secondary School Certificate it was realized by the respondent that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded, consequently he first attempted to get it corrected by making applications and upon his failure to get the relief, filed the instant suit. It was further contended that the respondent's erroneous date of birth has led to a situation where his elder siblings had become younger to him.

4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. It appears that the first document on record is a Grade VI School Leaving Certificate issued by Iqra Rauza tul Atfal Trust on 30.6.2009 containing respondent's date of birth, as 5.6.1994 and the second one is the admission form whereby the respondent's admission in Grade VI was approved in Garrison Academy on 24.6.2009, it also contains the respondent's date of birth as 5.6.1994. Additionally, the respondent himself while filing up the examination form of Matric had again given the same date of birth. In his suit he stated that after he passed the SSC, he came to know about the fact that incorrect date of birth was mentioned in his educational record and consequently, he filed the suit. However, such claim is negated by the fact that prior to SSC result, he had on 27.11.2013 applied to the Garrison Academy for correction of his date of birth on the basis of his birth Certificate issued by NADRA on 19.11.2013. In our opinion, the High Court committed gross error of upsetting concurrent findings of the Courts below and directed the petitioner - Board to change his date of birth merely on the basis of birth certificate issued by NADRA almost after 19 years of respondent's birth and that too without supportive form 'B' which could not have been given preference over the date of birth recorded in respondent's matriculation certificate. Coming to the oral evidence, the respondent in support of his case beside official witness who produced record examined two witnesses, the first one is PW-1 Zubair Ahmed who himself was just 22 years of age whereas PW-6 Muhammad Idrees was of 21 years both were his cousin and their statements were nothing but only hearsay and could not be safely relied upon. The High Court remained totally oblivious of the fact that such evidence, documentary as well as oral could not be made basis of changing the record maintained by the Board.

5. In view of such overwhelming evidence, it was not appropriate for the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction to have up-set the concurrent findings. In the circumstances, while converting this petition into appeal, we allow the same and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Balochistan. MWA/C-8/SC Appeal allowed.