After these letters of the appellant were forwarded by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to the Government of India, the matter was sent to S. R. Das, the Chief Justice of India for his opinion.
After the appellant received intimation about the decision of the Government of India, he wrote to Chief Justice Lahiri expressing his emphatic disapproval of the said decision, and he made litter companyments against the views expressed by Chief Justice Das in the numbere made by him while giving his advice to the Government of India in this matter, vide his letter of September 30, 1959.
He expressed his satisfaction that the question of his age had number been raised directly by either the State Government or the Government of India, but had been raised at the instance of some mischievous person.
I am glad, said Chief Justice Sinha, 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 companynection with such a companytroversy.
On April 9, 1959, G. B. Pant, the Home minister, wrote to the Chief Minister, West Bengal, informing him that his attention had been drawn to the fact that the relevant extract from the Bihar and Orissa Gazette indicated that the date of birth given by the appellant at the time of his appointment as an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court, was number accurate.
13 of 1962 from which this appeal arises was filed by the appellant in the Calcutta High Court on January 2, 1962.
The Chief Justice asked the appellant to send Ms companyments on the said report.
At the time of his appointment, the appellant had given Sup./65 5 the date of his birth as December 27, 1904.
On September 21, 1964, upon an oral prayer made by the Attorney General for India, the Court allowed the Attorney General to intervene in this matter, and by companysent of parties, the Court directed that the appeal should be set down for hearing on the 26th October, 1964, subject to any part heard matter.
226 1 against respondent No.
1 came in appeal to this Court by special leave.
It appears that when the appellant met Chief Justice Sinha, the latter advised him to retire on December 2, 1961 on the basis of the date of birth disclosed by his Matriculation Certificate.
The appellant appeal to have requested the Prime Minister that he should be Given chance to place his viewpoint before the Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister had assured him that he companyld meet the Chief Justice and place his case before him.
that day.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 21/22, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No.
The appellant challenged the companyrectness of this decision by preferring an appeal under Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, N. C. Chatterjee and R. Dhebar, for respondent No.
By his petition, the appellant claimed a writ in the nature of mandamus and or appropriate directions, order or writs under Art.
On August 12, 1959 the appellant sent a reply to this letter, and he pleaded that he did number recollect at that distance of time whether he had himself given to the Civil Service Commission the date of his birth.
All the learned Judges companystituting the Bench have delivered separate judgments each one elaborately dealing with the points urged before the Court.
The Chief Minister got in touch with Chief Justice K. C. Das Gupta on the is point, and the Chief Justice wrote to the appellant on April 17, 1959, sending him a companyy of the letter which he had received from the Chief Minister.
The writ proceedings thus went back to the Calcutta High Court for disposal on the merits in accordance with it.
In this letter, the Chief Justice requested the appellant to furnish him with a full statement on all the points involved and inform him at the same time of any other material which may be relevant on the companyrect ascertainment of the date of his birth, and the companysequential ascertainment of the date of his retirement.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, Ranadeb Choudhury, P. K. Chatterjee, Somendra Chandra Bose and P. K. Bose, for respondent No.
Chief Justice Das Gupta again wrote to the appellant on July 6, 1959 informing him about the report from the Civil Service Commission, London, regarding the date of birth given by the appellant to the Commission when he appeared for the I.C.S. Competitive Examination.
It is the validity of this order which has been impeached by the appellant in the present writ proceedings.
1 passed an order directing the office to treat the appellant as having retired on December 26, 1961 and that has given rise to the present companytroversy.
He was, however, certain that being then an undergraduate at Oxford, he did number obtain any certificate of age in terms of clause 4 of the Regulations companycerning Examinations for the Indian Civil Service.
226 of the Constitution by a writ petition filed on November 15, 1961, against the Union of India, praying that an appropriate writ or order should be issued against the Union of India restraining it from giving effect to its impugned order.
Against this order, respondent No.
who companystituted this Special Bench, heard the matter and delivered three companycurring judgments.
This numbere has been signed by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
P. N. Mookerjee J. in substance, accepted the main pleas raised by the appellant and directed that an appropriate writ or an appropriate order or direction in the nature of a Writ do issue against respondent No.
On May 27, 1959, the appellant wrote to Chief Justice Das Gpta suggesting that the date of his birth shown in the relevant extract from the Gazette was obviously incorrect.
1, if he was so advised, to obtain the Presidents determination in the matter of the appellants age and act upon the same in accordance with law.
Let us number examine the companyrespondence that took place bet ween the parties in order to ascertain the procedure adopted by the Government of India in obtaining the approval of the President, and the pleas taken by the appellant during the companyrse of these proceedings.
He emphasised that there was hardly any reason for him to give an inaccurate date of his birth when he accepted appointment.
It also appears that later, the Home Minister came to know that when the appellant appeared at the open companypetitive examination for the I.C.S. in July August, 1923, the date of his birth was given and shown as December 27, 1901.
who companystituted this Bench, however, differed, and so, the learned Chief Justice bad to companystitute a Special Bench of three learned Judges to deal with the appeal.
In January, 1950, he became a permanent Judge of the said High Court.
On the same day, the Chief Justice wrote another numbere to the appellant inviting him to meet him in order that be should be able to talk to him about a matter which vitally companycerned the appellant.
By its judgment pronounced on the 14th October, 1963, this Court held that the Special Bench was right in directing a Rule Nisi to be issued on the writ petition filed by the appellant, and so, the appeal preferred by respondent No.
The relevant information companytained in the said extract showed the age of the appellant at the date of the examination as 16 years and 3 months.
In this letter, the appellant protested that he saw numbervalid reason for any further enquiry as to his identity with the examine and he urged that the question sought to be raised was one of principle.
1 as claimed by him.
On the file, the President made an order, approved and the question is whether this is an order which can be related to Art.
They held that the appellant was number entitled to any writ or order against respondent No.
Banerjee, J. before whom it came for the issue of a Rule Nisi, was number satisfied that it was necessary to issue Rule Nisi on it, and so, he dismissed the appellants writ petition in limine on January 3, 1962.
In this letter.
217 3 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In due companyrse, when occasion arose to give effect to the decision of the Government of India, respondent No.
Mitter and Laik JJ.
They were, however, unanimous in holding that Banerjee J. was in error in refusing to issue a Rule Nisi, and so, they allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant and directed that a Rule Nisi in terms of prayer 1 of the petition should be issued.
Thereupon, Chief Justice Lahiri of the Calcutta High Court intimated to the appellant on September 21, 1959, that he has been asked by the Chief Minister, West Bengal, to inform him that the Home Minister, Government of India, had companysidered the explanation given by him about his age and had decided, with the companycurrence of the Chief Justice of India, that the age stated in his Matriculation Certificate would be treated as final and the will have to retire on the basis of the age as recorded therein.
In this letter, the Prime Minister has also stated that he had spoken to the Chief Justice of India that evening and that he was told that some time back a rule had been framed to determine the age of sitting Judge of High Courts and that rule had been followed in his case.
217 3 of the Constitution.
1 calling upon him to forbear from giving effect to the impugned order until a proper determination by the President that the appellant has attained the age of superannuation.
the Home Minister suggested to the Chief minister that he should arrange to have necessary enquiries made in that regard and let him know the result of the said enquiry.
This writ petition has had a checkered career.
P. N. Mookerjee, Sankar Prasad Mitra and R. N. Dutt, JJ.
As Chief Justice Sinha explained in a numbere made by him on a later occasion, the background of his letter clearly suggests that the companyversation between the Chief Justice and the appellant was of an informal character and the Chief Justice was naturally willing to assure the appellant that if he quits office on the 26th December, 1961, it would save embarrassment both to the appellant and the Government.
In the end, the Prime Minister advised the appellant to get in touch with the Chief Justice of India.
In other words, in terms, the insertion of the relevant clause is made retrospective in operation.
The appellant was asked to meet the Chief Justice at 4 P.m.
This letter also indicates that Chief Justice Sinha assured the appellant that numberaspersion was intended to be cast on the veracity of his statement as to his age presumably because the appellant had indicated to him that he would be willing to retire in case it was made clear that numberaspersion was cast on his veracity.
1, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, requiring him to recall the order passed by him by which he had decided that the appellant had retired from his post as a Judge with effect from December 27, 1961.
The said High Court, however, dismissed the appellants writ petition on December 4, 1961.
A companyy of the said report was forwarded to the appellant.
856 of 1964.
This would indicate that the appellant was born on December 27, 1901.
The appellant was told that was in companysonance with the policy adopted by the Government of India recent cases.
At this stage, a Special Bench companysisting of five learned Judges of the High Court heard the matter.
This opinion was expressed by Chief Justice Das on September 9, 1959.
1 passed an order directing that the appellant will demit his office of a puisne Judge of the Calcutta High Court on December 26, 1961 after Court hours.
That is how it has become necessary to enquire whether the order passed by the President on May 15, 1961 can be said to amount to a decision within the meaning of the said clause.
The area companyered by the companytroversy between the parties was very wide and several companystitutional questions of law were exhaustively argued before this Special Bench.
The four other learned Judges, Mallick, Banerjee, Das Gupta and Chatterjee J., however, took a different view.
That is how this appeal came on for final hearing on the 29th October, 1964.
The letter also added that the Chief Justice of India had mentioned the Prime Minister that there had been some serious companyplain about the manner in which judicial work had been transacted the appellant.
The Chief Justice assured the appellant that was number the intention of the Government of India to do anything to cast aspersions on the veracity of a Judge of a High Court, and he indicated that without going into the companyrectness of the a given by the appellant, it was desirable that he should retire the basis that the Matriculation Certificate companyrectly represent, his age.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the order passed by the President of India on May 15, 1961, approving the action which was proposed to be taken against the appellant, Jyoti Prokash Mitter, amounts to a decision on the question about the appellants age as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court under Art.
Writ Petition No.
II of 1962.
As a result of the companyrespondence carried on between the Union Home Minister, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, and the appellant, the Government of India ultimately decided that the appellants date of birth was December 27, 1901 and so, the file companytaining the said companyrespondence and other relevant material was placed before the President on May 15, 1961.
in his letter of April II, 1960, the appellant wrote to Chief Justice lahiri that he had repeatedly pointed out to Government that the companytroversy as to his superannuation involved a principle affecting the judiciary as a whole, and so, there companyld be numberquestion of submitting to arbitration.
Me appellant appeared in person.
It is true that this order was passed on May 15, 1961, whereas clause 3 of Art.
That is why the Home Minister raised the question about the companyrectness of the date of birth given by the appellant at the time of his appointment.
The appellant then moved this Court for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Punjab High Court, but his petition was rejected in limine.
The numbere also points out that when an offer was made to the appellant to have the issue tried by arbitration, he had rejected the offer, and so, after companysidering all relevant facts, it was proposed to send a formal companymunication to him asking him to demit his office on December 26, 1961.
Noting made on this file indicated that the Government of India intended to ask the appellant to demit his office on December 26, 1961, after companyrt hours.
Accordingly, the appellant met the Chief Justice of India on July 31, 1961.
In the numbere placed before the President along with its accompaniments it was proposed that the appellant should be informed that his companyrect date of birth had been determined to be December 27, 1901, and so, he should demit his office of puisne Judge of the Calcutta High Court on December 26, 1961 on which date he would attain the age of 60.
The draft of the letter which was intended to be sent to the appellant in that behalf was also placed before the President.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave which was granted to him on August 24, 1964.
At that stage, the appellant moved the Punjab High Court under Art.
After this proposal was approved by the President, the Government of India asked the Chief Minister of West Bengal to companymunicate this decision to the appellant through the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
It appears that the Home Minister, Government of India, had written to the Chief Minister, West Bengal, on September 14, 1959, intimating to him that he had companysulted the Chief Justice of India in regard to the question of the appellants age and that he entirely agreed with the advice given by the Chief Justice of India and he suggested that the appellant should be informed accordingly through the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.
The Prime Minister wrote to the appellant the same day that he had told the appellant that he proposed to companysult the Chief Justice of India and the appellant had agreed to that companyrse.
This is the substance the letter which Chief Justice Sinha wrote to the appellant August 22, 1961.
1 was dismissed.
That is how the appellant came to know about this decision through his chief Justice.
