( 1 ) THE plaintiff was appointed an additional Judge of tile High Court at Calcutta on February II, 1949 and a permanent Judge of the said court on 21st January, 1950. He gave his date of birth as 27th December, 1904. After the plaintiff had been in office for about ten years the Home Minister, Government of India purported to reopen the question of his age on the ground of discrepency between the age as stated in his certificate for the Matriculate Examination and the age given by him. The Government of India held the plaintiff s correct date of birth to be 27th December, 1901. This determination opened the gates of the litigation between the plaintiff and the Government. The plaintiff filed petition in the circuit bench of the Punjab High Court but it was dismissed as not maintainable. The plaintiff then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Calcutta. It was heard by a Special Bench of five judges and his petition was dismissed by a majority decision of four judges vide judgment dated 22nd May, 1964. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave which was allowed on 9th November, 1964 and this judgment i