1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

2. Relying on Medical Certificate dated 11th May, 1974 based on affidavit of the appellant; clinical and physical examination; supporting evidence of relative difference of ages, the appellant intends it to be 16‑9‑1919, giving him another three years in service. Supporting evidence is found in affi davit of Mr. Suffrul Haq Huqqi, the elder brother of the appellant that the appellant is younger to him by two years. Qazi Mukhtar Ahmad, Khawaja Akhtar Hussain and Abdul Saeed Khan, similarly certify that the appellant was their colleague in school and was younger to his brother Saffrul Haqqi. On the basis of this evidence the appellant applied to the Government for rectification of the error but Finance Division declined to interfere at this late stage. He was conveyed the result on 29‑6‑1974. Similar other representa tion was rejected vide letter dated 5th of August, 1974. It is now contended that representation was not considered at proper level and that irrebutable presumption attached to the Matriculation Certificate is unjustified in law.

3. Respondents contested the appeal on the factual ground of want of due evidence. Certain technical objections were also hazarded as to the competence of appeal, bar of limitation, maintainability of appeal and misjoinder of parties; yet main, reliance being placed by both the parties on G. F. R. Vol. 1, para. 116, other objections were not urged. Para. 116, reads as under:‑ "Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory; documentary evidence such as a Marticulation Certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined under Para. 117 should be recorded in gistary of service, service book, or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant's service under Government and once recorded, it cannot be altered, except in the case of a clerical error, without the previous order of the Local Administration." It has further been laid down that Ministries/Divisions of the Central Government exercise the powers of a Local Administration for the purposes of this Rule.

4. This para. has been recapitulated in full because of the argument on behalf of the appellant that rejection was not within the competence of Finance Division. His plea is that a competent authority in his case being Prime Minister, under Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1973, no other authority was empowered to apply its mind. Other point stretched into service is sufficiency of evidence against the Matriculation Certificate. In this context, Lahore High Court ruling (P L D 1970 Lah. 33) was cited to show that Matriculation, Certificate was not so sacrosanct as to admit no variation by other acceptable documentary evidence.

5. We will first consider the evidence and see its impact on the appeal. It is admitted that in Matriculation Certificate the date of birth is given as 16th September, 1916. Subsequently Form No. 10 under Fundamental Rule 74 was filed and the date therein conforms with the Marticulation Certificate, Service record is also to the same effect. Besides, it bears certificate in the hand of the appellant admitting the contents to be correct to pest of his knowledge, This is the evidence op behalf of the Government. The appellant entirely relies on Civil Surgeon's clinical and physical examination and the fact of Suffrul Haq Haqqi being senior to him in age, The clinical and physical examination is mostly based on affidavit of the appellant as is evident from the date of birth that has begin given in the certificate itself. Otherwise Doctor's physical examination could not have discovered to him the date of birth. After the age of 30, a human body having completely developed the estimate by a Doctor does not have such authenticity. It has a larger margin of error, specially when the conclusion is not even based on the Radiologist's report. Other evidence Saffrul Haq Haqqi being older is inconclusive more so when the apparent discrepancy was in the knowledge of the appellant right from the very beginning. He lived with this birth date from 1934 onwards and made no effort whatsoever to get it corrected. He also certified it to be correct in one of the documents referred to above. This turning back after 40 years and on such a scanty evidence cannot be countenanced. Moreover, it was for the Local Government to accord' this request and when on due consideration of available evidence, it took a decision, no interference is called for. The High Court ruling cited above is of no avail because therein birth certificate from Municipal Committee, School certificate and Head Master's certificate were appended which contradicted the birth date recorded in the Matriculation Certificate. There it is could be presumed that age discovered by Matriculation certificate, was errone ous and may have been caused by clerical mistake. In the present case, oral evidence of doubtful nature could not justify rejection of consistent admission and record of the birth with which the appellant lived for a period of 40 years. It would not be right. The decision by the Local Government was correct and has to be upheld. On the next ground taken up we can only say that in the context of G. F. R. it is not a competent authority but Local Administration which can exercise discretion of changing the date of birth once recorded. The arguments as to competence of Financial Advisor, therefore, being against para 116 note I, the argument has to be rejected as misconceived.

7. There is also some truth in the allegations argued that the matter involved is not covered by Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It is not the Government which is trying to force retirement of the appellant. It is only accepting the evidence recorded in certified record in the hand of the appellant. Therefore, no adverse action in engendered to require exercise of discretion by the competent authority.

8. In view of the above, no case is made out. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall also pay the costs of Rs. 50 which shall be deducted from the security deposited by him. Parties shall be informed.