Correction of Birth Dates Record in Matriculation Certificates

Correction of Birth Dates Record in Matriculation Certificates Case Laws Civil Law Civil Revision Coram non judice Date of Birth Knowledge - Civil Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Solutions - Civil Law Mr. Justice Mushtaq Ahmad Tarar in his judgment has decided the issue regarding correction of birth dates record in matriculation certificates in Civil Revision No. 1207-D of 2011.

1. The petitioner has directed this civil revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan in the suit for declaration filed by the respondents.

2. The facts in brief leading to this civil revision are that respondents filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has entered incorrect and wrong dates of birth of the respondents in their matric certificates. The following chart will show the alleged correct dates of birth of the respondents in the plaint and the dates of birth of the respondents mentioned in the matric certificates.

3. The respondents have asserted in the plaint that dates of birth mentioned in their matric certificates are against the facts, hence, correction should be made and the petitioner be directed to enter their correct dates of birth in the record. The petitioner submitted contesting written statement, wherein six preliminary objections about maintainability of suit were taken. On merits the petitioner contended that dates of birth of the respondents have been entered in their matriculation certificates according to the particulars provided by them in their admission forms, no mistake or negligence has been committed by the petitioner and the suit merits dismissal.

4. After framing the issues, the parties were put to trial, their pro and contra evidence was recorded and suit of the respondents was decreed by the learned trial Judge whereas appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge was dismissed hence this revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have procured bogus birth certificates after long period of their appearance in the matriculation examination; that the dates of birth of the respondents in their matriculation certificates were mentioned by the petitioner according to the particulars provided by the respondents in their admission forms and there is no malafide or negligence of the petitioner; that the suit was not competent under sections 29 & 31 of The Punjab Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Act, 1976; that the suit was hopelessly time barred; that both the learned Courts below have committed material illegality while passing the impugned judgments and decrees against the law and facts of the case.

6. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondents argued that both the Courts below have passed the judgments and decrees in accordance with law; that concurrent findings of two learned Courts below cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon “Nazir Ahmed through L.Rs. Vs. UMRA and others” (2002 SCMR 1114) and “Ghulam Rasool Vs. Ghulam Mustafa and others (1999 YLR 398).

7. Arguments heard, record perused.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the provisions of sections 29 & 31 of The Punjab Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Act, 1976 and urged that jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge was exclusively barred to try the suit filed by the respondents. I would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act referred supra for the sake of convenience. Section 29 & 31 read as under:

29. No act done, order made or proceedings taken by a Board in pursuance of the provision of this Act shall be called in question in any Court.

31. No suit for damages or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Government, the Controlling Authority, a Board, a Committee, a member of a Committee or an officer or employee of a Board in respect of anything done or purported to have been done in good faith in pursuance of the provisions of this Act and the Regulations and Rules made there under.

9. In this case the respondents have asserted in the plaint that the petitioner has entered incorrect dates of birth in their matric certificates mistakenly, whereas, on the other side, the stance of the petitioner in written statement was that the dates of birth of the respondents have been entered in their matric certificates correctly according to the particulars provided by the respondents.

Further information regarding correction of birth dates record in matriculation certificates can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.