IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, C.J. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 4428 OF 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 31.10.2019 of 
the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta 
passed in Appeal No.490/2018) 
 
Muhammad Khaliq Mandokhail 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Government 
of 
Balochistan 
through 
Chief 
Secretary, 
Civil 
Secretariat, Quetta and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Not represented 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
16.02.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- The instant petition 
under Article under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner calling in 
question the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta 
dated 31.10.2019 whereby the Service Appeal filed by him seeking 
correction of date of birth in the service record was dismissed. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
petitioner was appointed as Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue 
Department of Government of Balochistan on 18.08.1992. He was 
promoted to the Post of Tehsildar vide notification dated 07.03.2010 
and he was further promoted to BPS-18 vide notification dated 
18.10.2017. The date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned in the 
Secondary School Certificate as 01.03.1959, while in the service 
book, it was registered as 20.12.1963. However, the petitioner 
approached the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, 
Quetta to get his date of birth corrected in the Secondary School 
Certificate in the year 2014 after the lapse of 22 years. The said 
certificate was duly issued to him on 29.12.2014 by correcting the 
Civil Petition No.4428 of 2019 
-: 2 :-
date of birth of the petitioner from 01.03.1959 to 20.12.1963. The 
petitioner after securing correction of date of birth in the Secondary 
School Certificate, also got his date of birth corrected from NADRA in 
his CNIC. The department issued seniority lists dated 15.10.2014 
and 03.01.2018, however, the date of birth of the petitioner was 
mentioned as 01.03.1959. The petitioner being aggrieved by the 
seniority lists duly issued by the department filed objections before 
the competent authority but the objections raised by the petitioner 
were not addressed and the department paid no heed to it. 
Consequently, on 27.09.2018 a notification was issued by the 
department regarding the date of retirement of the petitioner, after 
attaining the age of superannuation, with effect from 28.02.2019 
basing his date of birth as 01.03.1959. Against the notification of 
superannuation, the petitioner filed departmental appeal which was 
rejected vide order dated 02.01.2018. Being aggrieved by the 
rejection of departmental appeal, the petitioner preferred service 
appeal before the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, which was 
dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 31.10.2019. Hence 
this petition for leave to appeal. 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends 
that in the service book the date of birth of the petitioner was rightly 
mentioned as 20.12.1963 and according to law, the first date of 
birth entered in the service record has to be presumed to be the 
correct date of birth; that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into 
consideration 
Rule 
11 
of 
the 
Balochistan 
Civil 
Servants 
(Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, according to 
which the date of birth of a civil servant once recorded at the time of 
joining the government service shall be final and no alteration 
therein shall be permissible; that the learned Tribunal has also not 
considered that the petitioner’s date of birth recorded in the 
matriculation certificate was corrected by the Board by issuing a 
duplicate certificate. He lastly added that while passing the 
impugned judgment, the learned Service Tribunal has erred in law, 
therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.  
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 
have perused the available record. 
Civil Petition No.4428 of 2019 
-: 3 :-
5. 
 
We have noticed that the petitioner was appointed as 
Naib Tehsildar on 18.08.1992. The academic credentials of the 
petitioner clearly reflect that the date of birth was recorded as 
01.03.1959 on every document including NADRA record. It was very 
surprising that the petitioner moved for correction of his date of birth 
after the lapse of 22 years of continuous service in the year 2014. 
He approached the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, 
Quetta to get his date of birth changed from 01.03.1959 to 
20.12.1963. It is surprising that the Board without any hesitation 
proceeded according to the whims of the petitioner and submitted 
itself before the desire of the petitioner, although the Board had no 
authority to entertain such a request and made alteration of its own. 
We have specifically confronted the learned counsel to show us from 
the record the material placed before the Board which prompted the 
Board to come for the rescue of the petitioner and act according to 
the illegal desire of the petitioner. It has been informed that an 
affidavit was tendered, which was made basis for conversion of the 
date of birth from 01.03.1959 to 20.12.1963. It is established law 
that while seeking such like correction, a declaration is sine qua non 
which can only be issued by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction 
on the basis of evidence produced during the proceedings regarding 
the authenticity of the subject matter. In the absence of any 
declaration the Board was not empowered to change the date of 
birth. The whole proceedings carried out by the Board are nothing 
but squarely smack mala fide at the end of Board as well as the 
litigant. The said conduct of the Board is deprecated. As a 
consequence the proceedings carried out regarding the change of 
date of birth are prima facie based upon an act of Board which is 
mala fide based upon extraneous consideration, therefore, any 
superstructure raised over it would fall to the ground. As we have 
noticed that the whole proceedings were carried out after the lapse 
of 22 years of active service, therefore, it can be safely held that the 
proceedings carried out by the petitioner were based upon an 
afterthought just to prolong the service tenure and it was nothing but 
an attempt to continue with the service on the basis of frivolous and 
tainted documents which speak volume in relation to its 
genuineness. This Court in a number of cases has discouraged 
change in the date of birth of a civil servant, which could be for the 
Civil Petition No.4428 of 2019 
-: 4 :-
purpose of unduly enhancing the tenure of service in employment. In 
the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch Vs. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 
456), it has been held by this Court that a civil servant could not 
seek alteration in his date of birth at the verge of his retirement. The 
material produced and examined by the Tribunal clearly suggests 
that the petitioner got changed his date of birth when he was at the 
verge of his retirement. 
6. 
 
Now we will advert to the contention raised by the 
learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Rule 11 of the 
Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) 
Rules, 2009, the date of birth of a civil servant once recorded at the 
time of joining the government service shall be final and no 
alteration therein shall be permissible. It would be in order to 
reproduce the said rule, which reads as under:- 
“11. The date of birth of a civil servant once recorded at the 
time of joining the Government service shall be final and no 
alteration therein shall be permissible, except, where a 
clerical mistake occurs in recording the date of birth in the 
Service record: 
 
Provided that, no request of a civil servant on this ground 
shall be entertained after a period of two years from the date 
of such entry in his service record; and all such cases shall 
be 
decided 
by 
the 
Appointing 
Authority, 
on 
the 
recommendation of an Enquiry Committee with the following 
composition: 
 
1. Senior Member, Board of Revenue  
Chairman 
2. Secretary, S&GAD  
 
 
Member 
3. Secretary, Law Department.  
 
Member 
4. Secretary of the concerned  
 
Co-opted Member  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Administrative  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Department” 
 
7. 
 
A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it 
abundantly clear that the date of birth of a civil servant once 
recorded at the time of joining of Government service as a general 
principle shall be final and would not be altered except (i) there is a 
clerical mistake (ii) the change is sought within the period of two 
years. This Rule narrows down the scope for change of date of birth 
by stipulating that no alteration shall be permissible after the expiry 
of the time as mandated in the said rule. Otherwise, the service book 
is only a piecemeal and for all intents and purposes it would not be 
considered as a complete service record. We have noticed that the 
Civil Petition No.4428 of 2019 
-: 5 :-
other documents relating to his service record including the 
academic record, the CNIC, the seniority lists prepared on different 
occasions, the ACRs and the retirement notification, all conjointly 
reflect that the date of birth of the petitioner was incorporated as 
01.03.1959. The petitioner joined the service on 18.08.1992, 
whereas he agitated his grievances in the year 2014 after the lapse 
of 22 years. Hence keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is 
clear that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner seeking 
alteration in the date of birth while pressing in Rule 11 of the 
Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) 
Rules, 
2009 
were 
intended 
on 
the 
basis 
of 
extraneous 
considerations just to prolong the service period. The whole 
proceedings carried out by the petitioner can be dubbed as tainted 
on this score alone. Otherwise no substantial question of law of 
public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been raised 
before this Court. 
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition 
having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is 
refused. 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
16th of February, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
