1. The petitioner challenged the date of birth of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, claiming his actual date of birth was in 1934, not 1937, and thus he had attained the retirement age of 65 years according to the Constitution.
2. Several official documents were produced, including educational certificates and identity documents, showing the Chief Justice's date of birth as 1 July 1934.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, saying the date of birth could be corrected based on an affidavit and authenticity of the documents establishing his date of birth as 1934 was not challenged.
Original Description:
Original Title
1998 SCMR 1494 - Supreme Court Desired That Such Rule With Regard to Correction of Age Should Also Be Applied to Judiciary
1. The petitioner challenged the date of birth of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, claiming his actual date of birth was in 1934, not 1937, and thus he had attained the retirement age of 65 years according to the Constitution.
2. Several official documents were produced, including educational certificates and identity documents, showing the Chief Justice's date of birth as 1 July 1934.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, saying the date of birth could be corrected based on an affidavit and authenticity of the documents establishing his date of birth as 1934 was not challenged.
1. The petitioner challenged the date of birth of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, claiming his actual date of birth was in 1934, not 1937, and thus he had attained the retirement age of 65 years according to the Constitution.
2. Several official documents were produced, including educational certificates and identity documents, showing the Chief Justice's date of birth as 1 July 1934.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, saying the date of birth could be corrected based on an affidavit and authenticity of the documents establishing his date of birth as 1934 was not challenged.
Present: Nasir Aslant Zahi! Muna"ar Ahma Mir#a an A$ur Rehman %han! && S'e ()*A+ ,A(-.R /// Petitioner 0ersus 1.-.RA2(3N 31 PA%(S2AN an another///Responents Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 1998, decided on 30th April, 1998. 4a5 Constitution of Pakistan 419675//// ----Arts. 179 & 18!3"---Constitutional petition #efore $upre%e Court under Art. 18!3" of the Constitution---&etirin' a'e of a $upre%e Court (ud'e---Point raised in the petition )as a#out the date of #irth of respondent !Chief (ustice of Pa*istan" contendin' that respondent )as #orn in the +ear 193, and not 193 and, thus, could not continue in his office after attainin' the a'e of -5 +ears--.eld, %atter in issue )as not such )hich re/uired 0o #e placed #efore the 1ull Court for hearin'---2nterpretation of Art.179 or an+ other pro3ision of the Constitution )as not re/uired. 4$5 A8e ----Correction of date of #irth---Contention that date of #irth could not #e corrected %erel+ on the #asis of an affida3it )as %isconcei3ed. ---4Affida3it5. 495 Ci:il ser:i9e/// ---- A'e of e%plo+ee---Application of e%plo+ee for chan'e in his date of #irth--- 6o3ern%ent e%plo+ee under the rele3ant &ules cannot %a*e an+ application for chan'e in his date of #irth after t)o +ears of his 7oinin' the ser3ice--Authenticit+ of date of #irth recorded in the docu%ents, therefore, cannot #e challen'ed #elatedl+ speciall+ #e+ond the period of t)o +ears---$upre%e Court desired that such &ule )ith re'ard to correction of a'e should also #e applied to 7udiciar+. ---4A'e5. Petitioner in person. Ne%o for &espondents. Ch. 8uha%%ad 1aroo/, Attorne+-6eneral for Pa*istan and 8.A. 9atif,: &e'istrar, $upre%e Court of Pa*istan on Court Notice. ;ate of hearin'< 30th April, 1998. &;-<M.N2 NAS(R AS+AM ZA,(-! &=///=e ha3e heard the petitioner, $+ed 2/#al .aider, )ho has appeared in person. =e ha3e also heard learned Attorne+ 6eneral for Pa*istan, )ho has appeared in pursuance of Court >rder dated ,7--1998. ?he &e'istrar has produced the official record re'ardin' the a'e of respondent No., !8r. (ustice A7%al 8ian", )hich has #een perused #+ the Court and then returned to the &e'istrar. ?he &e'istrar has also produced attested copies of se3eral docu%ents under co3er of a letter of @a%ran A. 8ian son of respondent No.,, )ho has co%e fro% @arachi and is also present, >ri'inal record attested copies )hereof ha3e #een placed on record is a3aila#le )ith the &e'istrar ha3in' #een #rou'ht #+ @a%ran A. 8ian, )hich has #een seen #+ the Court and then returned to the &e'istrar. Copies of these docu%ents ha3e also #een supplied to the petitioner and also to the learned Attorne+ 6eneral. 2n the co3erin' letter it is %entioned #+ @a%ran A. 8ian respondent No., has 'one a#road to attend a conference. ,. ?he petition is filed under Article 18!3" of the Constitution #+ the petitioner i%pleadin' 1ederation of Pa*istan throu'h the $ecretar+, 8inistr+ of 9a), (ustice and Parlia%entar+ Affairs, - and 8r. (ustice A7%al 8ian as respondents. 2n the petition, reference has #een %ade to Article 179 of the Constitution, )hich reads as under<-- AA (ud'e of the $upre%e Court shall hold office until the a'e of si0t+fi3e +ears, unless he sooner resi'ns or is re%o3ed fro% office in accordance )ith the Constitution.A 3. Accordin' to the petitioner, date of his #irth sho)n #+ respondent No., is 1-7-193 #ut this is incorrect and his actual date of #irth is 1st (ul+, 193,, and accordin'l+ respondent No., attained the a'e of -5 +ears on 30th (une, 1997, and as a result he has no le'al ri'ht to continue as (ud'e of the $upre%e Court or Chief (ustice of Pa*istan after 30th (une, 1997. 2t is %entioned in the petition that in the second )ee* of (anuar+, 1998, the petitioner had 'one to A'ra !2ndia" and o#tained a true cop+ of A$cholar:s &e'ister and ?ransfer Certificate 1or%A relatin' to respondent No.,, accordin' to )hich docu%ent date of #irth of respondent No., is 1st (ul+, 193, and not (ul+, 193, )hich accordin' to hi% has #een incorrectl+ clai%ed #+ respondent No., to #e his correct date of #irth. Accordin' to the petitioner, he also o#tained another certificate dated ,1-1-1998 issued #+ the $chool accordin' to )hich respondent No., had his initial schoolin' in a school in A'ra, )here he, accordin' to the certificate )as a A#oardin' studentA and accordin' to the student re'ister, his date of #irth is 1st (ul+, 193,. 2t is further %entioned in the %e%o. of petition that earlier the petitioner had filed a )rit petition #efore the 9ahore .i'h Court #ut the sa%e )as dis%issed in li%ine on the 'round that the docu%ents on )hich the petitioner had relied i.e. $chool:s &e'ister and ?ransfer Certificate 1or%, A'ra )ere not attested and, therefore, there )as no e3idence on the #asis of )hich it could #e said that the date of #irth 'i3en #+ respondent No.,, i.e. 1-7-193, )as )ron'. ?he petitioner no) infor%s that he has relati3es in A'ra and he had as*ed the% to 'et copies of the said docu%ents attested #+ a Notar+ Pu#lic in 2ndia and after this )as done, the said docu%ents #e sent to the petitioner throu'h post. After recei3in' the docu%ents fro% A'ra, petitioner filed the present Constitutional petition #efore this Court under Article 18!3" of the Constitution. . Apart fro% the official record produced #+ the &e'istrar pursuant to orders of this Court sho)in' that the date of #irth 'i3en #+ respondent No., at the ti%e of his enrol%ent as Ad3ocate $upre%e Court )as 1st (ul+, 193, attested copies of the follo)in' docu%ents ha3e #een produced #+ the &e'istrar, )hich ha3e #een supplied to hi% #+ the son of respondent No.,<-- !i" 8atriculation certificate issued #+ Bni3ersit+ of $indh on 10th (anuar+, 1950, )ith endorse%ent on the #ac* of the Certificate #+ the &e'istrar of the Bni3ersit+. !ii" 9etter of the Bni3ersit+ of $indh, dated ,1st 8arch, 1998, reproducin' ite% No. ,8!3ii" and &esolution No. passed #+ the $+ndicate of the Bni3ersit+ in its %eetin' held on 15th No3e%#er, 195,. !iii" Cop+ of the %inutes of the $+ndicate of Bni3ersit+ of $indh of its %eetin' held on 15th No3e%#er, 195,. !i3" Cop+ of the passport issued #+ the 6o3ern%ent of Pa*istan to respondent No. , on 15th >cto#er, 1953. !3" Cop+ of pa'e No.77 of the &e'ister of Cnrol%ent of Ad3ocate of .i'h Court of $indhD !entr+ No.,1,5 in this docu%ent relates to respondent No.,". !3i" Cop+ of National 2dentit+ Card of respondent No., issued on ,5--1975. 2t has alread+ #een o#ser3ed that all these attested copies ha3e #een #rou'ht #+ the son of respondent No., )hich ha3e #een placed on record and, after perusal of the ori'inal docu%ents, the sa%e ha3e Eeen returned to hi% throu'h the &e'istrar. : 5. ?he first docu%ent is the 8atriculation Certificate issued on 10th (anuar+, 1950, #+ the $indh Bni3ersit+, accordin' to )hich respondent No., had passed the %atriculation e0a%ination in 8arch, 199, and the date of #irth as recorded in his application for ad%ission )as 1-th Au'ust, 193, !and not 1-7-193, as alle'ed #+ the petitioner". At the #ac* of the Certificate, there is an endorse%ent %ade #+ the &e'istrar of the Bni3ersit+ of $indh, .+dera#ad dated 19th No3e%#er. 195,, to the follo)in' effect<-- A2t has #een pro3ed to the satisfaction of the $+ndicate that the date of #irth of the candidate 8r. A7%al 8ian son of 8uha%%ad 8ian as recorded in his application for% for ad%ission to the 8atriculation C0a%ination is )ron' and that his correct #irth date is the 1irst da+ of the %onth of (ul+ of the +ear one thousand nine hundred thirt+ four.A 2n the said endorse%ent, reference has #een %ade to the satisfaction of the $+ndicate !Bni3ersit+ of $indh" re'ardin' date of #irth of respondent No., and in this conte0t docu%ent No., is rele3ant )hich is, dated ,1st 8arch, 1998, of the &e'istrar, $indh Bni3ersit+ addressed to the respondent No., in )hich, )ith reference to letter 17th 8arch, 1998 of respondent No.,, the &e'istrar had reproduced 2te% No. ,8!3ii" and &esolution No. passed #+ the $+ndicate at its %eetin' held on 15th No3e%#er, 195,. 2te% No.,8!3ii" is A?o consider the /uestion of chan'in' the date of #irth of 8r. A7%al 8ian son of 8uha%%ad 8ian fro% 1--8-193, to 1-7-193A and &esolution No. is A&esol3ed that the date of #irth of 8r. A7%al 8ian son of 8uha%%ad 8ian #e chan'ed fro% 1--8-193, to 1-7-193A. 9etter dated ,1-3-1998 of the &e'istrar, Bni3ersit+ of $indh, also states that he )as for)ardin' a certified cop+ of the %inutes of the %eetin' of the $+ndicate held on 15th No3e%#er, 195,. ?he third docu%ent is the cop+ of 8inutes of $+ndicate:s %eetin' held on 15th No3e%#er, 195,, sent #+ the &e'istrar of the Bni3ersit+ and, at pa'e 9 of this docu%ent, 2te% No.,8!3ii" appears as )ell as &esolution No.. ;ocu%ent No. is cop+ of the Passport of respondent No., issued on 15th >cto#er, 1953, #+ the 6o3ern%ent of Pa*istan and date of #irth in the passport is 'i3en as 1st (ul+, 193. ;ocu%ent No.5 is- cop+ of pa'e 77 of the &e'ister of Cnrol%ent of Ad3ocates of $indh .i'h Court. Cntr+ No.,1,5 in this docu%ent relates to respondent No., and his date of #irth %entioned therein is 1st (ul+, 193. ?he last docu%ent is the National 2dentit+ Card dated ,5--1975 No. 51--3-180-85 of respondent No., )hich 'i3es date of his #irth as 193. -. ?he petitioner does not challen'e the authenticit+ of the aforesaid docu%ents, #ut has su#%itted that, accordin' to his infor%ation and in3esti'ation carried out #+ hi%, respondent No., throu'h an affida3it 'ot his date of #irth corrected #+ the $+ndicate Bni3ersit+ of $indh. Accordin' to the petitioner this chan'e or correction could not #e o#tained %erel+ on the #asis of an affida3it, despite the fact that authenticit+ of the aforesaid docu%ent is not challen'ed #+ hi%. 7. ?he petitioner first su#%itted that the /uestion raised #+ hi% is of 'reat i%portance and also in3ol3es interpretation and consideration of Article 179 of the Constitution and, rtherefore, this petition #e placed #efore the 1ull Eench for hearin'. =e are of the 3e) that the onl+ point that has #een raised #+ the petitioner is a#out the date of #irth of respondent No., and, as %entioned earlier, accordin' to hi%, respondent No., )as #orn in the +ear 193, and not 193. 2n our 3ie) it is not a %atter )hich re/uires to #e placed #efore the 1ull Court for ,hearin'. 2t does not re/uire interpretation or consideration of Article 179 or an+ other pro3ision of the Constitution. 8. ?he petitioner then su#%itted as follo)s<-- !a" Accordin': to the petitioner, respondent No., left A'ra in 197 and at that ti%e date of his #irth in the record of the $chool in )hich he )as stud+in' )as 1-7-193,. !#" 2t )as su#%itted that the chan'e of date of #irth fro% 193, to 193 is #ased onl+ on an affida3it and, despite the fact that the petitioner )as not challen'in' the authenticit+ of the docu%ents produced #efore us, chan'e of date fro% 193, to 193 onl+ on the #asis of an affida3it )as of no conse/uence and #+ a &esolution of the $+ndicate on such affida3it alone date of #irth could not #e chan'ed. !c" Article 179 refers to retire%ent of the (ud'es of the $upre%e Court on reachin' the a'e of -5 +ears and spirit of this Article is that the ale of -5 +ears is to #e calculated fro% the actual date of #irth )hich, accordin' to the petitioner, in the case of respondent No.,, is 193, !d" ?he petitioner has also referred to the 7ud'%ent of 1ull Eench o1 this Court in the case of 8ali* Asad Ali 3. 1ederation of Pa*istan !P9; 1998 $C 1-1" for the su#%ission that this Court can pass an+ order to do co%plete 7ustice, and the la) as )ell as the Constitution re/uire that an order should #e passed that respondent No., had alread+ attained the a'e of -5 +ears on 30th (une, 1997, and he has ceased to #e a (udie or Chief (ustice of the $upre%e Court of Pa*istan fro% that date. 9. 9earned Attorne+-6eneral has su#%itted that the authenticit+ of the docu%ents produced toda+ has not #een challen'ed #+ the petitioner, )hich docu%ents estahlished that, in 195,, date of #irth of respondent No., )as corrected #+ a &esolution of the $+ndicate of the $indh Bni3ersit+ )hich ha+ not #een challen'ed for nearl+ - +earsD the sa%e cannot #e challen'ed no). 2t is further su#%itted #+ the learned Attorne+-6eneral that, in 195,, on the application of respondent No., the $+ndicate of Bni3ersit+ of $indh, after >ne satisfied that the correct date of #irth of respondent No., )as 1-7-193, passed a resolution to that effect and since then, in all the docu%ents, date of #irth of respondent No., is sho)n as 1-7-193. Accordin' to the learned Attorne+ 6eneral, these are 'enuine docu%ents and the petitioner has also not challen'ed the authenticit+ of the said docu%ents. 2t )as su#%itted that no reliance cats #e placed on the copies of docu%ents )hich the petitioner has produced. 2t )as further. su#%itted #+ the learned Attorne+-6eneral that, accordin' to the Pro3incial 6o3ern%ent $er3ice &ules and 1ederal 6o3ern%ent $er3ice &ules, a 6o3ern%ent ser3ant can 'et corrected his date of #irth )ithin t)o +ears of 7oinin' 6o3ern%ent ser3ice and thereafter such option is not open to the 6o3ern%ent ser3ant. 10. ?he docu%ents )hich ha3e #een produced #efore us toda+ as o#ser3ed are clear on the point that, as far #ac* as 195,, on the application of respondent No.,, the $+ndicate of Bni3ersit+ of $indh, after #ein' satisfied, corrected the date of #irth of respondent No., fro% 1--8-193, to 1-7-193. >n the #asis of this resolution, endorse%ent )as %ade on the #ac* of the 8atriculation Certificate of respondent No.,. ?he su#%ission of the petitioner that date of #irth could not #e corrected %erel+ on the #asis of an affida3it is %isconcei3ed. ?he &esolution of the $+ndicate does not sho) that onl+ an affida3it had #een produced #efore the $+ndicate #+ the respondent No.,, #ut fro% the resolution and fro% the endorse%ent on the #ac* of 8atriculation Certificate it is e3ident that the $+ndicate )as satisfied, on the #asis of the %aterial produced #efore the $+ndicate that the date of #irth on the 8atriculation Certificate )as )ron' and it )as corrected to 1-7- 193. 2n our 3ie), the $+ndicate, ha3in' ta*en such decision - +ears a'o and conse/uential entr+ ha3in' #een %ade then, the sa%e is not open to challen'e or attac* after %ore than four decades. =e, therefore, find no %erit in the petition. 11. &eference %a+ also #e %ade to other docu%ents produced toda+ #+ the son of respondent No., throu'h the &e'istrar )hich include entries in the Passport issued on 15- 10-1953D enrol%ent of respondent No., as Ad3ocate of .i'h Court of $indh as far #ac* as 1e#ruar+, 1957, and cop+ of the National 2dentit+ Card issued on ,5--1975. All these docu%ents are consistent )ith the &esolution of the $+ndicate of Bni3ersit+ of $indh and %ost of the% are part of the pu#lic record. 1,. =e %a+ also refer to the su#%ission %ade #+ the learned Attorne+ 6eneral that, in 6o3ern%ent ser3ice, an e%plo+ee cannot %a*e an+ application for chan'e in his date of #irth after t)o +ears. >n analo'+, such rule should also #e follo)ed in 7udiciar+, )hich other)ise )ould lead to serious co%plications, and open a pandora:s #o0. $i%ilarl+, authenticit+ of date of #irth recorded in the docu%ents cannot #e challen'ed #elatedl+, speciall+ #e+ond the a#o3e%entioned period. 13. >n the #asis of docu%ents )hich ha3e #een produced #+ the &e'istrar of this Court, speciall+ the &esolution of the $+ndicate of the Bni3ersit+ of $indh in 195,, copies of the docu%ents on )hich reliance has #een placed #+ the petitioner ha3e no si'nificance and are of no conse/uence. ?here is also a dou#t a#out the authenticit+ of the docu%ents produced #+ the petitioner )hich are alle'ed to #e copies of record of a pri3ate school in 2ndia. =e find no su#stance in this Constitutional petition )hich is here#+ dis%issed. 8.E.A.F2-18F$ Petition dis%issed.
2000 S C M R 1321 -Dismissal From Service---Regular Inquiry Not Held---Service Tribunal Had Rightly Concluded That Dismissal of Civil Servant From Service and Subsequent Reduction in Punishment Were Violative of Dictum
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1996 P L C CS 433 - Statutory Rules National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules Were First Promulgated in Year 1973 and Subsequently in Year 1980 Rules of 1980
1996 S C M R 1185 - Rule of Good Governance Demand That The Benefit of Such Judgment by Service Tribunal-Supreme Court Be Extended To Other Civil Servants Who May Not Be Parties To The Litigation
1996 S C M 8413 - IRREGULAR Appointment Service Tribunal Having Re Instated Civil Servant Could Not Be Deemed To Have Committed Any Illegality or Irregularity