9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ihar and Orissa Gazette. I need not concern myself, in this petition, with the attempts made by the petitioner to dissuade the persons or authorities concerned either from reopening his age of from proceeding on the basis of his age, as appearing in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette (that is to say, his Matriculation age). Ultimately, however, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs wrote a letter, dated May 16, 1961, to the petitioner the material portion of which is set out below : It was brought to the notice of the Government of India that your age at the time of passing the Matriculation examination of the Patna University held in April, 1918, was 16 years and 3 months, according to the entry against your name in the results of that examination published in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette, dated the 26th June, 1918. The Government of India have also received information that your date of birth was recorded as 27th December, 1901, when you sat at the open, competitive examination in July-August, 1923, held by the U. K. Civil Service Commission for appointment to the Indian Civil Service. This date viz., 27th December, 1901, tallies with the entry regarding your age at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs in the University records. I am glad to know that you have taken my assurance in the spirit in which it was given, namely, to save you and to save the Government from any embarrassment in connection with such a controversy. The assurance, contained in the letter from the Chief Justice, did not assuage the petitioner and be further corresponded with the Ministry of Home Affairs disputing the constitutionality of the decision. Failing to make the Ministry change its view, he moved an application, under Article 226 of the Constitution, before a Circuit Bench, of the Punjab High Court at Delhi, praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of mandamus and for appropriate directions and orders directing the Union of India not to give effect to the purported decision or direction contained in the Home Secretary's letter, dated May 16, 1961 and not to interfere with the discharge of the duties and functions as well as with the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of the petitioner as a Judge of the High Court, until December 27, 1964 (namely, the date of superannuation according to the petitioner's own version). He obtained a rule. 5. The Punjab High Court by its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral letters were exchanged between the petitioner on the one hand and the Chief Justice of Calcutta, the Chief Justice of India and the Home Secretary on the other. The petitioner on no occasion produced any material which would go to rebut the evidence of the Gazette or the report of the Civil Service Commission. Along with the petition he has filed two documents, one of which purports to be his horoscope and the other an entry made by a relative in an almanac. These two documents were never mentioned by him in his correspondence and they certainly were not produced before anyone. If reference was made by the petitioner in his oral conversation with anyone, no record of such conversation was kept, and it seems to me, that this evidence has been produced now for the first time. The petitioner's attitude throughout has been that the matter cannot be reopened at all, because the age which he had given in 1949 just before his appointment as Judge was accepted, and this acceptance cannot now be questioned and since he took up this position throughout, he did not consider it necessary to produce or even to refer to any evidence which had been in his possession when such evidence mig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Home Ministry and the only manner in which he can be made to leave his office is by means of an order passed after an address by each House of Parliament as laid down in proviso (b) to Article 217(i) of the Constitution, and if that be so, then he need not seek any relief from this Court and there is no occasion for issuing a mandamus directing the Union of India not to give effect to its decision. (e) I am also convinced upon all the material which has been produced before us, including the horoscope and the entry in the almanac, that the Home Ministry was not wrong in accepting the correct age as that given in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette and in the certificate which the petitioner had filed with his application when he sat the Indian Civil Service Examination. The Punjab High Court refused to give leave to the petitioner to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order. The petitioner, thereupon, applied for special leave before the Supreme Court but his application was rejected. -8. December 22, 1961 was the last working day of this Court before the Christmas Vacation. On that date the petitioner wrote the following letter to the Chief Justice of this Court : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at I consider to be an unjust interference on your part with my duties and functions as well as with my rights and privileges as a Judge of the High Court and must demand that justice be done to me by recalling forthwith your said orders and/or directions and by affording me all such facilities as are necessary to enable me to carry out my duties and functions as a Judge. * * * 9. The petitioner now alleges, (a) that the Chief Justice of this Court directed that no cause list for the petitioner should be printed, or published for January 2, 1962, namely, the date on which this Court was to reopen after the Christmas Vacation (paragraph 50 of the petition), (b) that the petitioner's orderlies were also withdrawn from their duties, with effect from December 27, 1961 (paragraph 50 of the petition), and (c) that by doing all that the Chief Justice of this Court pup-ported to give effect to the decision of the Government of India as to the date of his superannuation, contained in the Home Secretary's letter dated May 16, 1961 (paragraph 46 of the petition). 10. The petitioner contends that he cannot be removed from office except in the manner laid down in proviso (b) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch published his matriculation age, nor does it conform to the age the petitioner himself gave at the time when he sat for the competitive examination held by the United Kingdom Civil Service Commission in 1923. For the purpose of ascertaining the date of retirement of the petitioner, the intriguing problem had to be resolved. The Ministry of Home Affairs made one solution of the problem by deciding to rely on the age at the time of the petitioner's matriculation examination, as appearing in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette, and conveyed that decision to the Chief Justice of this Court. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Government of India, by way of a writ petition, before the Punjab High Court and courted a decision. The Punjab High Court dismissed the petitioner's application, inter alia, on the ground that the Home Ministry was not wrong in accepting the correct age of the petitioner as that given in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette, (meaning his age at the time of the Matriculation Examination) and the certificate which the petitioner filed with his application when he sat for the Civil Service Examination. The petitioner moved for special leave before the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jab High Court has also failed. To ask the Chief Justice now to disregard the decision of the Government of India and to treat the petitioner as still holding the office is to ask him to arrive at a decision which he cannot make and has no duty to make. It was the business of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to arrive at an administrative decision (in the sense of keeping an administrative record) about the date of petitioner's superannuation. That it has done. Whether it decided the matter correctly or not is not for me to say in this application, for reasons already stated. The Chief Justice of this Court has merely taken note of that decision or recording. That was the only thing he could do in the circumstances of this case. 18. The petitioner strenuously urged that the Chief Justice of this Court was not bound to take notice of the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs and should have continued to allocate judicial work to him and maintained the other facilities of his office. He relied on Section 14 of the Act establishing High Court (24 and 25 Vict. Cap. 104), Section 108(2) of the Government of India Act, 1915, Section 223 of the Government of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
