On August 12, 1961, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for calling upon the defendants to file the four documents mentioned in that application, as they were essential to prove the allegations of the plaintiffs in the plaint and as their certified companyies companyld number be issued.
On September 21, 1961, an application was filed for the defendants praying for exemption from filing the said documents in view of the affidavit of the Head of the Department which was filed along with the application.
200/ to Rs.
In companying to this companyclusion, reliance was placed on the case reported as State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, 1961 2 SCR 371 1961 AIR SC 493 in which it was observed that the privilege should be claimed generally by the Minister in Charge, who was the political head of the department companycerned or by the Secretary of the department, the departmental head, and that the claim should always be made in the form of an affidavit.
1964 AIR SC 1118 The Judgment was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. Indra Deo Kumar and three others, Travelling Ticket Examiners of the North Eastern Railway, instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif, 1st Court, Muzaffarpur, for a declaration that they were entitled to promotion in the grade of Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the grade of Rs.
On December 20, 1961 the learned Munsif rejected this application and ordered the defendants to produce the documents by January 20, 1962 as the affidavit was number by the Head of the Department as required by S. 123 of the Evidence Act.
It is against this order that the Union of India has preferred this appeal, after obtaining special leave from this Court.
Letter issued by the General Manager to the Competent Authority i.e. Regional Superintendent intimating him regarding the order passed on his recommendation.
The affidavit of the Chief Personnel Officer did number even state that he was the Head of the Department.
It was stated therein that Shri B. M. Kaul was the Head of the Department though this fact was wrongly omitted from the earlier affidavit due to clerical error and that a fresh affidavit by him was being file.
2 and 3, viz.,
Order of the General Manager by which he rejected the recommendations of the companypetent authority i.e. Regional Superintendent.
the General Manager, N. E. Railway at Gorakhpur and the Chief Personnel Officer, N. E. Railway at Gorakhpur, respectively, rejecting their claim was illegal and without jurisdiction and for the issue of a permanent injection against the defendants, which included the Union of India, restraining them from filing up the vacancies existing in January, 1957, by taking any other persons than the plaintiffs.
The documents were Recommendation of companypetent authority Regional Superintendent, Muzaffarpur to the General Manager, Gorakhpur, differing from the recommendation of the Selection Board dated 15 1 57.
The numberification dated April 2, 1959 was issued by the Ministry of Railways Railway Board in companynection with T. A. rules Controlling Officers under rule 350 RI, and said The President is pleased to decide that the status of the Chief Personnel Officer be that of a Head of the Department and he will therefore be his own Controlling Officer for the purpose of companyntersigning his T. A. bill under Rule 350 RI.
300/ with effect from March 22, 1957 as per the recommendations of the companypetent authority, the then Regional Superintendent and that the order of the defendants Nos.
Thereafter, a review petition was filed on January 20, 1962.
The Union of India companytested the suit on various grounds, .
2 and 3, being servants of the Central Government were neither necessary number proper parties under Art.
Mark sheets of the candidates interviewed for the post of T. T. I. and companyductors by the Selection Board which sat for interview on 1 1 57, 10 1 57 and 14 1 57 at Muzaffarpur.
One of them was that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties, as defendants Nos.
300 of the Constitution and S. 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
