Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used for declaratory orders or declaratory reliefs, or for collateral purposes to be utilised as a foundation for subsequent claims in future legal proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order made by J. P. Mitter, J, making absolute the Rule obtained by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution and setting aside the order of the Railway Administration retiring the petitioner on the 19th October, 1956 as having reached the super-annuation age.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case may be stated at the outset. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Traffic Department of the East Indian Railway Company in the Company days on the 22nd April, 1921. The age recorded in his service record then was 19 years 6 months on appointment. The East Indian Railway Company was taken over by the State i. e. by the Government of India on the 1st January, 1925. On the 15th November, 1940 the petitioner made an application stating that his age was 18 years 1 month and 21 days on the date of appointment. This was about 20 years after his joining the service. In that letter, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner and annexed to his petition, he stated that he joined the service under the Administration on 22nd April, 1921, but unfortunately his age was recorded 19 years 6 months. He, therefore, writes"subsequently I discovered from my University Certificate that the actual age on the date of my appointment was 18 years, 1 month and 21 days. I enclose herewith the original University Certificate together with the Admit Card in support of my statement. I shall be highly obliged if you will kindly arrange to have the records corrected accordingly. "

( 3 ) THE Railway Administration immediately on getting this letter called for an explanation from the petitioner. This letter calling for an explanation was dated 30th November, 1940. In that letter the Railway Administration stated that the date was attested by the petitioner himself. Therefore, an explanation was sought why this wrong date was given at the time and attested by him. It was stated also in that letter that there was no justification for altering the existing record of age. Neither the petitioner gave any explanation nor was the record altered. The matter rested there in 1946. It was revived again in 1946 when the petitioner again wrote to the Railway Administration for correction of his age on the 7th May, 1946. Finally on the 27th June, 1946, the Railway Administration again called for an explanation from the petitioner saying "you are, therefore, requested to let me know the satisfactory reason as to why you had given the wrong age at the time of your appointment." The explanation was this time given on the 19th September, 1946 by the petitioner in these terms:"i beg to state that the original Matriculation Certificate was submitted to the Office with my application for appointment in proof of my age; and I was not aware of any discrepancy till recently when I approached your goodself to rectify the clerical mistake by a fresh submission of duplicate copy of the original Matriculation Certificate. "to that a reply was given by the Railway Divisional Superintendent on the 30th December, 1946, expressing his inability to rectify the age.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER nothing happened for seven years until in 1953 when the petitioner again applied to the Deputy General Manager, Eastern Railway, for correction of his age. This time he stated that on the 22nd April, 1921 the original University Certificate was taken by the D. T. S. Office for recording age and the certificate was not returned to him and therefore, he was compelled to take a duplicate copy of the University Certificate for the age verification of some Insurance which the petitioner wanted to make. No particulars of the Insurance have, however, been given in the records. The Divisional Superintendent again answered on the 9th May, 1953, stating that the age as recorded in the service sheet could not be altered. The matter again rested there. It was again revived on the 13th January, 1954 when the petitioner wrote to the Deputy General Manager fo