Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) Sushil Chandra Deb Roy, who was an employee of Eastern Railway Administration had brought a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the General Manager, Eastern Railway and four other officers (the appellants above named) of the said Railway, inter alia, for a decree declaring his right to continue in his post as a Senior A.G.C. Burdwan under the Divisional Superintendent Eastern Railway, Howrah, after rectifying the date of his birth in the service book and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from giving effect to the order of his superannuation with effect from 1st February, 1971. The defendants had contested the said suit. The trial court did not grant any ad interim order of injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff respondent. On 20,h August, 1974 the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court decreed the said suit in favour of the plaintiff and declared that he ought to have retired on super annuation on 1st June, 1973 and his superannuation on 10th March, 1972 was illegal. The learned Judge of the court below accepted the plaintiff's case that he was born 1st June, 1923 and that he could not have been made to retire on a date prior to 1st of June, 1973. But, presumably because the court had delivered its judgment on a date subsequent to 1st June, 1973 which the plaintiff claimed was the date of his superannuation, the trial court did not grant the plaintiff's prayer for permanent injunction. The defendant-appellants being aggrieved by the said decision, preferred this appeal.
(2.) Having heard the parties and considered the pleadings and the evidence,we are satisfied that the decree as passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. At the outset, we may point out that the trial court's attention was not drawn to the fact that the Union of India, which owns the Eastern Railway Administration was not impleaded as a defendant and only the five officers of the said Railway Administration including the General Manager by their designations were made defendants. But it is unnecessary to consider this question of joinder/non-joinder of parties because the plaintiff's case ought to be dismissed on merits.
(3.) On 4th August, 1934, the then Division Superintendent, Howrah, East Indian Railway had issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on probation to the posts of Assistant Station Masters and Signallers. The qualifications for the said posts were that the candidates must have passed the matriculation or equivalent examination, hold a diploma in telegraphy and be of an age between 18 and 21 on 9th of October, 1934 (vide Ext. 1). In response to the said advertisement the plaintiff-respondent submitted an application dated 13th August, 1934. According to the copy of the said application produced by the plaintiff (Ext. 4), he had stated therein that he had passed the matriculation from the Calcutta University in the year 1929 and he held a diploma in telegraphy from the Indian Telegraph and Commercial School, Chittagong. His age would be 19 years 5 months on 9th of October, 1934. The original application submitted by the plaintiff, however, was not produced by the Railway Administration. The plaintiff was given an appointment as a probationary Assistant Station Master with effect from February 11, 1935.;