1993 PLP 1681 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑‑In these four petitions for leave to appeal, namely, Civil Petition No. 708 of 1988, Civil Petition No. 756 of 1988, Civil Petition No. 757 of 1988 and Civil Petition No. 758 of 1988 the petitioners are the same whereas the respondents are different. However since these petitions involve determination of common questions of law and fact these are being taken up and disposed of together. The position in Civil Petition No. 708 of 1988 is that the date of birth of respondent Rana Asghar Ali alias Muhammad Asghar as shown in his matriculation examination certificate is 10th April 1927 whereas according to the record of the Municipal Committee, Gujrat he was born on 22nd March 1929. He approached the Punjab University (petitioners) for getting the date of birth corrected but the University declined to entertain his application. Thereupon on 30th July 1984 he filed a suit against the petitioners for declaring his date of birth to be 22nd March 1929 and not 10th April 1927 and also directing the University to correct his date of birth accordingly in the matriculation examination certificate. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Subsequently the civil revision of the petitioners also failed. In Civil Petition No. 756 of 1988 the position is that the date of birth of respondent Muhammad Aslam Bora in the matriculation examination certificate was shown as 12th April 1926 whereas according to him his correct date of birth was 15th March 1927. In his case also the suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, and the revision petition subsequently met the same fate. In Civil Petition No. 757 of 1988 the date of birth of respondent Dr. Ikramul Haq as shown in the matriculation examination certificate was 1st January 1924. He claimed that his date of birth was 3rd July 1924. His suit also succeeded as well as the appeal against the same and the revision preferred by the petitioners failed. In Civil Petition No. 758 of 1988 respondent Syed Ghous Muhammad Shah claimed that the matriculation examination certificate indicated that he was born on 15th October 1918 whereas according to him his correct date of birth was 1st March 1922. His suit was dismissed but the respondent succeeded in appeal before the District Judge. Eventually the civil revision filed by the petitioners as against the respondent also failed. Hence the present four petitions for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that the Syndicate of the Punjab. University 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 was in accordance with the provisions of section 48‑A of the University of Punjab Act, 1973 which could not be challenged in any Court by a suit or otherwise, and that since the petitioners could not act in violation of their own decision no direction could be issued to them by any Court for correcting the date of birth of any person including the present respondents. It was submitted that the decision of the Syndicate had been made in good faith and therefore it could not be assailed in any Court. This argument was raised before the learned Division Bench and the learned Judges have elaborately dealt with it. The learned Judges were correct to arrive at the conclusion that the University cannot disable itself from exercising its power for all times to come and that it must be prepared to consider a genuine case if its circumstances warrant special treatment for it cannot be said that a genuine case demanding correction of date of birth could not arise after December 1961. Furthermore a point blank refusal to entertain any application for correction of date of birth even in a legitimate case may amount to deliberate avoidance to exercise the power in this respect and if it so happens it would lose the aura of good faith as well as immunity from attack in Court proceedings under section 48‑A of the University of the Punjab Act, for the aggrieved person can in such circumstances approach the Civil Court for the redress of his grievance. After hearing learned counsel at some length we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. All the four petitions are therefore dismissed with the following observations:‑‑ (a) That without nullifying the aforesaid resolutions of the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab, it should be open to the University to allow or to refuse a change in the date of birth in each and every given case if the University authorities find that the material relied on was sufficient or insufficient to warrant such a change; (b) That the Syndicate when reconstituted should reconsider the resolutions in question for making a provision therein to incorporate a change in the date of birth of a candidate in his/her matriculation examination certificate in appropriate cases; and that (c) Furthermore since bad faith on the part of the University authority is not spelt out from the record, the finding of the learned High Court holding lack of good faith in not allowing a change in the dates of birth of the respondents, be considered as not sustainable and redundant. A.A./R‑216/S Petitions dismissed.