http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHIVANANDA PATHAK & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/02/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO  2567  OF 1998   (ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL NO. 3512/93)                       J U D G M E N T S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.      Whether "judicial  obstinacy’ can  be treated as a form of "bias" is the question which we intend to answer in these appeals. As  the answer  depends  upon  the  peculiar  facts involved in these cases, they are being examined in a little detail. 2.   Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition. 3.   These two  appeals are  directed against  the  judgment dated 21st  July, 1992  passed by  a Division  Bench of  the Calcutta High  Court comprising  of Mr.  Justice Ajit  Kumar Sengupta and Mr. Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen. 4.   Promotion to  the posts  of Inspector of Minimum Wages, Inspector of  Trade Unions, other Inspectors, Investigators, Supervisors, etc,  constituting the  West Bengal Subordinate Labour Service, is regulated by Rules made under Article 309 of the  Constitution which  were first notified on 25.9.1973 and again  on 1.8.1988  with certain  modifications. It  was provided in  the Rules  that fifty  per cent  of these posts shall be filled up by direct recruitment on the basis of the results of the West Bengal Miscellaneous Service Recruitment Examination and  the remaining  fifty per cent by promotion. Originally, under the 1973 notification, the eligibility for promotion was restricted to the following :      (a) Confirmed  Upper Division Clerk      of the  Labour directorate  and  of      the   shops    and    establishment      Directorate, Govt. of West Bengal.      (b) Confirmed Labour Welfare Worker      of  the  Labour  Directorate,  West      Bengal,   who    were   at    least      Matriculates  or   had   equivalent      qualification and  had rendered not      less than 10 (ten) years continuous      service as  Labour Welfare  Workers      under the labour Directorate.      (c) Confirmed  Assistant  Computers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

    in the  statistical section  of the      Labour Directorate, West Bengal. 5.  Subsequently,   under   the   1998   notification,   the eligibility was  a little  expanded and the promotion was to be made from amongst :      (a) Confirmed  Upper Division Clerk      of the  Labour Directorate,  and of      the   Shops    and   Establishments      Directorate.      (b)   Confirmed    Labour   Welfare      Workers of  the Labour Directorate,      West Bengal  (now placed  under the      West Bengal  Labour  Welfare  Board      constituted under  the West  Bengal      Labour  Welfare   Fund  Act,  1974)      Matriculates  or   have  equivalent      qualification, who  were  appointed      to the  same post  prior to the 1st      July, 1976,  the date  on which the      West Bengal  Labour  Welfare  Board      started   functioning,   and   have      rendered not  less  than  10  (ten)      years  continuous  service  in  the      post  of   Labour  Welfare  Workers      under Labour Directorate.      (c) Confirmed  Assistant  Computers      in the  Statistical Section  of the      Labour Directorate.      (d) Confirmed Upper Division Clerks      of the  regional offices  under the      Labour Directorate  and  under  the      Shops      and       Establishments      Directorate,  Government   of  West      Bengal. 6.   Confirmed Assistant computers, thus, constituted, under both  the   notifications,  one  of  the  feeder  posts  for promotion to the posts in the Subordinate Labour Service. 7.   Six of  such Assistant  Computers (hereinafter referred to as  Respondents) filed a Writ Petition  (C.O. No. 6584(W) of 1984)  in the  Calcutta High  Court, setting  out therein that although  they were eligible for promotion to the posts ofInspector, Investigator  and Supervisor  etc. of  the West Bengal Subordinate  Labour Service,  the respondents of that Writ  Petition,   namely,  the   State   of   West   Bengal, Commissioner of  Labour and  the Joint  Labour  Commissioner (Statistics),  had   promoted  only   ’the  confirmed  Upper Division Assistants’  to those posts in 1978 and their claim for promotion  was completely  ignored. It  was also  stated that although 48 vacancies were available in the Subordinate Labour Service in the Labour Commissioner’s Office under the Labour Directorate,  the respondents  intended  to  fill  up those vacancies  by promoting only the Upper Division Clerks and not  the persons  from other feeder posts, including the Assistant Computers.  It was  alleged that although only six permanent  Upper   Division  Clerks   were  available,   the respondents, namely,  the State  Govt., Labour Commissioner, etc. of  that Writ  Petition intended  to fill up the higher posts by  promoting the  temporary Upper Division Clerks and not the Assistant Computers who being eligible for promotion to the  posts  under  the  West  Bengal  Subordinate  Labour Service were  entitled to  be considered for such promotion. Consequently, they prayed for the following reliefs:      "(a)  for   a  writ   of   Mandamus           commanding the  Respondents to           promote the petitioners to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

         next  higher   posts,  namely,           Inspectors, Investigators  and           Supervisors etc.  in the  West           Bengal   Subordinate    Labour           Service   under   the   Labour           Directorate,   Government   of           West Bengal  and also  further           commanding the Respondents not           to   promote   the   temporary           and/or   non-confirmed   Upper           Division Clerks  to  the  said           posts;      (b)  for   a  Writ   of  Certiorari           directing the  Respondents  to           produce the  records  of  this           case to this Hon’ble Court, so           that conscionable  justice may           be rendered;      (c) A  Rule in terms of prayers (a)           and (b);      (d) An  interim order of injunction           restraining  the   Respondents           and/or   their   agents   from           giving any  promotion  to  the           said   higher   posts   namely           Inspector,       Investigator,           Supervisor etc,  in  the  West           Bengal   Subordinate    Labour           Service   under   the   Labour           Directorate,   Government   of           West Bengal  till the disposal           of the Rule;      (e) Any  other order  and/or orders           as your Lordships may deem fit           and proper." 8.   This Writ  Petition came  up  for  hearing  before  Mr. Justice  Ajit   Kumar  Sengupta  (since  retired),  who,  by judgment dated  21.8.1984, allowed  it  with  the  following operative order :      "In my  judgment this  is  a  clear      case     of      arbitrary      and      discriminatory action  on the  part      of the  respondents in depriving at      least   9    persons   from   their      legitimate promotion  in  the  West      Bengal Subordinate  Labour Service.      In  the  result,  this  application      must  be   allowed.  The   decision      and/or the  orders or promotion, if      made on  the basis  of the approved      lists,   are    set   aside.    The      respondents are  directed  to  give      promotion    the     West    Bengal      Subordinate Labour  Service on  the      basis of  the integrated  Gradation      List (Flag  "A" in  the  file)  and      shall   give   promotion   to   the      Assistant Computors  including  the      writ petitioners in the West Bengal      Subordinate  Labour  Service.  They      are directed to issue the orders of      promotion  forthwith  in  terms  of      this order.  The respondents  shall      give  promotion  to  the  Assistant      Computor   including    the    writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

    petitioners  to   the   Subordinate      Labour  Service  with  effect  from      13th  March,  1980  when  29  Upper      Division   Clerks   were   promoted      ignoring the claim of the Assistant      Computors    according    to    the      seniority determined  on the  basis      of the said Rules.      Let  this   order  be  carried  out      within two  weeks from  the date of      communication of this order." 9.   The  direction  to  promote  the  present  respondents, namely the  Assistant Computors  to the  Subordinate  Labour Service with  effect from  13.3.1980 was obviously given for the reason  that it  came  out  during  the  course  of  the proceedings that the Government, in the meantime, had filled up 31  posts on  13.3.1980 by  promoting 29  Upper  Division Clerks and 2 Labour Welfare Workers. By another order passed on the  same date, namely on 13.3.1980, five promotions more (two Assistant  Computors and 3 Labour Welfare Workers) were made. 10.  This judgment  was challenged  by a  number of affected employees  (about   32  employees),   who  filed  an  appeal (F.M.A.T. No.  3213 of  1984) before  the Division Bench and the latter,  namely, the Division Bench, by its judgment and order dated  17.1.1985, allowed  the appeal by the following order:           "After  hearing   the  learned      Advocates of  the parties and after      considering    the     facts    and      circumstances  of   the  case,   we      modify the  impugned order  of  the      learned Trial Judge and direct that      the  authorities   concerned  shall      consider the  cases of promotion to      the West  Bengal Subordinate Labour      Service of  the appellants  as also      of the  writ  petitioners  and  the      added  respondents   in  accordance      with law  and the  prescribed rules      including  the  appointment  rules,      within three months form date.           It is  made clear that we have      not expressed  our opinion  on  the      merits of  the respective  cases of      the parties.           This order  virtually disposes      of  the   appeal.  The   appeal  is      treated as  on day’s  list and both      the appeal  and the application are      disposed of as above. There will be      no order for costs." 11.  By this order, the direction passed by Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta  for promotion  of Assistant  Computers,  and that too  with effect  from 13.3.1980,  was substituted by a fresh direction  that the  cases of  Assistant Computers  as also those  of others would be considered in accordance with law and  the prescribed  rules,  including  the  appointment rules. 12.  In compliance  of this  direction, the  State  of  West Bengal  and   other  appellants   before   us,   after   due consideration, promoted  40 employees  drawn  from  all  the three categories  of feeder  posts, including  those namely, the present  respondents, who  had filed Writ Petition (C.O. No. 6584  of 1984),  by two  orders. (i) Order No. 1187 G.E.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

dated 16.4.1985  and (ii) Order No. 1832 G.E. dated 6.6.1985 to various posts in the Subordinate Labour Service. 13.  Two years  later, the same persons, namely, the present respondents, except  Smt, Shyamali Ghatak (nee Chakraborty), who had earlier filed Writ Petition (C.O. No. 6584 of 1984), filed another  Writ Petition  (registered as Matter No. 1449 of 1987)  in the  Calcutta High Court, praying that they may be paid  arrears of  salary and  allowances with effect from 13.3.1980 in terms of the judgment and order dated 21.8.1984 passed  by  Mr.  Justice  Ajit  Kumar  Sengupta.  This  Writ Petition  was  disposed  of  by  Mr.  Justice  Prabir  Kumar Majumdar by  his  judgment  and  order  dated  22.4.1988  by observing, inter alia, as under :"      "I have  considered the  respective      submissions  of   the  parties.  It      appears  that   the  order  of  the      learned trial  judge  made  on  the      earlier writ  petition dated August      24, 1984  was modified  and it  was      observed by  the  court  of  appeal      that :           ’After  hearing   the  learned           advocates of  the parties  and           after  considering  the  facts           and circumstances of the case,           we modify  the impugned  order           of the learned Trial Judge and           direct  that  the  authorities           concerned shall  consider  the           cases of  the promotion to the           West Bengal Subordinate Labour           Services of  the appellants as           also of  the Writ  Petitioners           and the  added respondents  in           accordance with  law  and  the           prescribed rules including the           appointment rules  within  the           three months from date.’           Therefore, it  was a direction      of the  court of  appeal  upon  the      concerned authorities  to  consider      the cases  of the  appellants, writ      petitioners  as   also  the   added      respondents in  accordance with law      and the  prescribed Rules including      the appointment  rules.  Therefore,      it  appear   to  me  that  whatever      entitlement, so  far  as  the  writ      petitioners are concerned, is there      in   the    relevant   rules,   the      petitioners will  get it  and their      claim  to   the  benefits  as  also      seniority   will    be   considered      accordingly and  in complying  such      authorities concerned  will  comply      with the  direction of the court of      appeal as  also the  learned  trial      court so  far modified by the Court      of Appeal.           In the facts and circumstances      of the  case,  I  do  not  see  any      ground to  interfere in  this  case      and the authorities will be free to      consider  the   case  of  the  writ      petitioners as  also other  persons

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

    concerned  with   the   matter   in      accordance  with   the   directions      contained  in   the  order  of  the      appeal court  in F.M.A.T.  No. 3213      of 1984.           The  writ   petition  is  thus      disposed of." 14.  This judgment  was challenged before the Division Bench which, at  the time  of hearing,  incidentally, comprised of Mr. Justice  Ajit Kumar  Sengupta and  Mr.  Justice  Shyamal Kumar  Sen  and  they,  by  their  impugned  judgment  dated 21.7.1992, allowed  the appeal  with the  direction that the respondents (appellants before us) shall treat the Assistant Computors to  have been  promoted to  the Subordinate Labour Service with  effect from 13.3.1980. It was further directed that although  they will  not be  entitled to any arrears of salary with  effect from  that date,  their basic pay in the scale of  pay would be fixed by treating 13th March, 1980 as the date  of their promotion without, however, affecting the seniority and other benefits of the persons already promoted to the  Subordinate Labour  Service. The  pay so  fixed, was made payable to them with effect from July, 1992. 15.  It is  this judgment  which is  challenged before us in both the appeals. 16.  Learned counsel  appearing on  behalf of  State of West Bengal as  also the  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the appellants  in   the  connected  appeal  have  assailed  the judgment not  only on  merits but also on the technical plea that Mr.  justice Ajit  Kumar Sengupta  having expressed his views when he had decided, as a Single-Judge, the first Writ Petition, namely  C.O. No.  6584(W) of 1984, should not have sat in  the Division  Bench to  hear the  appeal in the same matter between  the  same  parties  though  initiated  on  a subsequent Writ  Petition. It is contended that although the direction of  Mr. Justice  Ajit Kumar Sengupta to the effect that  the  Assistant  computors  (some  of  the  respondents herein) shall  be promoted  with effect  from 13.3.1980, had ceased to exist as the appeal against the judgment, in which this  direction  was  contained,  was  disposed  of  by  the Division Bench by issuing a fresh direction, the respondents herein, filed  another Writ  Petition seeking enforcement of the old  direction of  Mr. Justice  Ajit Kumar  Sengupta  by requiring the  State Government  to pay to them, the arrears of salary  of the  higher post  with effect  from that date, namely, 13.3.1980.  It is contended that the learned Single- Judge having  disposed of  this Writ  Petition by  observing that the  direction issued  by the  Division Bench alone was enforceable, no  interference was  called for  in the matter but Mr.  Justice Ajit  Kumar Sengupta reiterated his earlier view and  held that the respondents shall be treated to have been promoted  to the Subordinate Labour Service with effect from 13.3.1980. 17.  Learned counsel  for the respondents contended that the direction of the subsequent Division Bench, presided over by Mr. Justice  Ajit Kumar Sengupta, that the respondents shall be teated  to have  been promoted with effect from 13.3.1980 was innocuous  inasmuch as  neither the  arrears  of  salary with effect  from that  date was to be paid nor were they to affect the  seniority of  persons already  promoted  tot  he Subordinate  Labour   Service.  In  this  situation,  it  is contended, it  would not  be proper  to interfere  with  the impugned judgment. 18.  A copy  of the  Writ Petition filed before the Calcutta High Court  by the  respondents a  second time (being Matter No. 1449  of 1987)  has been  filed before  us. In  order to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

indicate  the   real  controversy   involved  in  that  Writ Petition, the relevant paragraphs of that Writ Petitions are reproduced below :           "Your  petitioner   sate  that      against the  aforesaid illegalities      namely  the   denial  of  promotion      seniority and other benefits to the      petitioners as prescribed in law, a      writ  application   was  filed   on      behalf of  the  petitioners  before      this  Hon’ble   Court   which   was      numbered as  C.O. 6584     /(W)/84.      After hearing  of the  parties  the      Hon’ble Mr.  Justice A.K. Sen Gupta      was  pleased   to  allow  the  said      application  of   the   petitioners      directing the  authorities to  give      promotion  on   the  basis  of  the      seniority. His Lordship was further      pleased to  direct the  authorities      to  give   promotion  to  the  Writ      Petitioners  to   the  sub-ordinate      Labour service  w.e.f. 13th  March,      1980.  His   Lordship  was  further      pleased to  direct the  authorities      to   give    promotion    to    the      petitioners to the West Bengal Sub-      Ordinate Labour  Service forthwith.      But against  the said  Judgment  of      His Lordship Mr. A.K. Sen Gupta and      Appeal having  the Tender  No. FMAT      3213  was   preferred  before  this      Hon’ble Court.  The Division  Bench      after  hearing   the  parties   was      pleased  to  dispose  of  the  said      appeal  directing   the  Respondent      authorities to  follow  and  or  to      give promotions  in accordance with      the   above    prescribed    rules.      Therefore  the   judgment  and  the      order  of  the  Trial  Judge  stood      upheld.  Accordingly,  pursuant  to      the judgment  of the  Trial  Court,      authorities   promoted   the   Writ      Petitioners on 17.4.85 to the posts      of  Investigators/Inspectors  under      West  Bengal   Sub-ordinate  Labour      Services,    Labour    Directorate,      Government of  West Bengal  and the      petitioners  have  been  posted  in      different places  in the said posts      where they  are new  served. A copy      of the   Judgment  in C.O. No. 6584      (W) /  84 passed by the Hon’ble Mr.      Justice   A.K.   Sengupta   annexed      herewith and  along with  the order      passed by  the  Division  Bench  in      FMAT 3213/84 and marked as Annexure      -      5. Your  petitioners state that now      they have been promoted in the West      Bengal     Sub-ordinate      Labour      Services, but  as per  the order of      this Hon’ble  Court they are deemed      to be  promoted and  or in  service

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

    since     13th     March,     1980.      Accordingly,  the  petitioners  are      entitled to  get the  seniority and      also the  monetary benefits of West      Bengal Sub-ordinate Labour Services      with retrospective effect from 13th      March, 1980.      6.  Your   petitioners  state  that      there has  been arrear  dues to the      petitioners since 13th march, 1980.      The  petitioners     made   several      representations     before      the      authorities for  the payment of the      said arrear dues but the Respondent      authorities have  not paid the same      to the  petitioners.  On  12.12.86,      the  petitioners   made  a  written      representation  to  the  Respondent      No. 1  along with  the statement of      arrear   dues   praying   immediate      payment of  the  said  arrear  dues      from 13.3.80 to 16.4.85 and in that      letter   demanding   justice.   The      petitioners also  pointed out  that      for the  above non-payment  of  the      arrear dues,  the petitioners  were      facing acutefinancial troubles. But      until now the authorities have done      nothing  for   the  grant   and  or      payment of  the said dues from 13th      March,  1980   to  16.4.85  to  the      petitioners. A  copy  of  the  said      representation dated 12.12.86 along      with the  statements  of  the  said      arrear dues are collectively marked      as Annexure  "B"  and  B1  to  this      application.      7. Your  petitioners state that the      authorities      denied       equal      opportunities of promotion to them.      The authorities  gave promotions to      West  Bengal   Sub-ordinate  Labour      Services  only   from   the   Upper      Division Clerks, even some of these      clerks were not confirmed. Thus the      authorities     denied     Computer      Assistants   and   labour   Welfare      workers of  the  Labour  Department      equal promotion seniority and other      benefits for  a long time. Thus the      whole     activities      regarding      promotion was  totally illegal  and      or  malafide.   That  is   why  the      Hon’ble Mr.  Justice A.K.  Sengupta      in C.O.  6384 (W)/84 was pleased to      direct that  the petitioners  whose      claim for  promotion  accrued  long      ago should be deemed to be promoted      to West  Bengal Sub-ordinate Labour      Service on  and  from  13th  March,      1980, because  on  that  date  many      junior persons and even unconfirmed      Upper   Divisions    Clerks    were      promoted to the Labour service. But      the  petitioners   were   illegally

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

    deprived of  the said promotion and      or seniority.  Thus the petitioners      are   entitled    to   the   arrear      financial benefits and Seniority on      and from 13th March, 1980.      8. Your petitioners state that they      made  series   of   representations      before  the   authorities  for  the      promotion  and   payment  of  their      arrear benefits  since 13th  March,      1980, but  the authorities  had not      yet paid  the said arrear. Thus the      petitioners  have   been   put   to      unnecessary financial  hardships by      the aforesaid non payment of arrear      dues." 19.  The following prayer was made in the Writ Petition :      "10. Your  petitioners humbly state      and  submit  that  the  authorities      illegally withheld  their promotion      for a  long time  but only pursuant      to the  direction and  or order  of      this   Hon’ble   Court   they   got      promotion in  the West  Bengal Sub-      ordinate Labour  service which  has      been illegally  withheld for a long      time. Therefore,  the direction  of      this   Hon’ble   Court   that   the      petitioners should  be deemed to be      promoted  since  13th  March,  1980      should  be  complied  with  by  the      authorities by  paying  all  arrear      benefits and  or dues  to the  West      Bengal Sub-ordinate  Labour Service      to  the   petitioners  immediately,      otherwise    they    will    suffer      irreparable loss and or injury." 20.  The real  question which  was, therefore,  involved  in that Writ  Petition was  whether the  direction given by Mr. Justice Ajit  Kumar Sengupta on 21.8.1984 while disposing of the earlier  Writ Petition  (C.O. No. 6584/(W) /84) , was in existence or  had ceased  to be an operative direction after the disposal  of F.M.A.T.  No. 3213  of 1984  by a  Division Bench  on  17.1.1985.  The  ultimate  order  passed  by  the Division Bench  in that appeal has already been extracted in the earlier  part of  the judgment which would show that the direction that the respondents shall be promoted with effect from 13th March, 1980 was set aside and was substituted by a fresh direction that the cause of the respondents along with other eligible  candidates for  promotion to the Subordinate Labour Service  shall be  considered in  accordance with law and the prescribed rules including the appointment rules. It was in pursuance of this direction that the State Government considered the  matter of  promotion and  by its order dated 16.4.1985, it  made promotions  of the  eligible  candidates drawn from  all the three sources (including the respondents who had  filed Writ  Petition  (C.O.  No.  6584/(W)/84),  to various posts in the Sub-ordinate Labour Service. This order does not  indicate that  the respondents  were promoted with effect from  13th March, 1980; may be this was not indicated as that  direction had  been set  aside  in  appeal  by  the Division Bench. 21.  When the  respondents claimed  arrears of  salary  with effect from  13th March,  1980 in pursuance of the direction issued by  Mr. Justice  Ajit Kumar  Sengupta through a fresh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

petition (Matter  No. 1449  of 1987)  filed in  the Calcutta High Court,  the learned  Single Judge  did  not  grant  the relief and  instead observed that since the direction issued by Mr.  Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta was modified, it was for the State  Government to consider their claims in accordance with the Rules in terms of directions of the Divisions Bench (Court of Appeal). 22.  An appeal  against this  judgment was  disposed of by a Division  Bench   which  included  Mr.  Justice  Ajit  Kumar Sengupta. The  question which,  therefore, arises is whether Mr. Justice  Ajit Kumar  Sengupta could  sit in the Division Bench to decide the appeal against that judgment? 23.  All judicial  functionaries have necessarily to have an unflinching character  to decide  a case  with  an  unbiased mind. Judicial  proceedings are held in open court to ensure transparency. Access to judicial record by way of inspection by the  litigant or his lawyer and the facility of providing certified copies  of that  record are factors which not only ensure transparency  but also  instil and inspire confidence in the impartiality of the court proceedings. 24.  Unlike suits,  proceedings under  Article  226  of  the Constitution  are   not  conducted  strictly  following  the provisions contained  in the Code of Civil Procedure but are held in  accordance with  the Procedure  devised by the High Court itself  under which  a fair hearing is provided to the parties concerned  before a  decision is  rendered. In other words, principles  of natural  justice are observed strictly in letter  and spirit.  One of  the requirements  of Natural Justice is  that the  hearing should be done by a Judge with an unbiased mind. 25.  Bias may  be defined  as a  pre-conceived opinion  or a pre-disposition or  pre-determination to decide a case or an issue in  a particular  manner, so  much so  that such  pre- disposition does  not leave  the mind open to conviction. It is, in  fact, a condition of mind, which sways judgments and renders the  Judge  unable  to  exercise  impartially  in  a particular case. 26.  Bias has many forms. It may be pecuniary bias, personal bias, bias  as to  subject matter in dispute, or policy bias etc. In  the instant  case, we are not concerned with any of these forms  of bias. We have to deal, as we shall presently see, a new form of bias, namely, bias on account of judicial obstinacy. 27.  Judges, unfortunately,  are not  infallible.  As  human beings, they  can commit  mistakes even in the best of their judgements  reflective   of  their  hard  labour,  impartial thinking and  objective assessment of the problem put before them.  In   the  matter   of  interpretation   of  statutory provisions of  while assessing  the evidence in a particular case or  deciding questions of law or facts, mistakes may be committed bona  fide which  are corrected  at the  appellate stage. This  explains the philosophy behind the hierarchy of courts. Such  a mistake  can be committed even by a Judge of the High  Court which   are  corrected in the Letters Patent Appeal, if available. 28.  If a   judgment  is over-ruled by the higher court, the judicial discipline  required that  the Judge whole judgment is over-ruled  must submit  to that  judgment. He cannot, in the same  proceedings or  in collateral  proceedings between the same  parties, re-write the over-ruled judgment. Even if it was a decision on a pure question of law which came to be over-ruled, it  cannot be reiterated in the same proceedings at the  subsequent stage  by reason  of the  fact  that  the judgment of  the higher  court  which  has  over-ruled  that judgment, not  only binds the parties to the proceedings but

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

also the  Judge who had earlier rendered that decision. That Judge may  have his occasion to reiterate his dogmatic views on a particular question of common law or constitutional law in some  other case but not in the same case. If it is done, it would  be exhibitive  of his  bias in  his own  favour to satisfy his egoistic judicial obstinacy. 29.  As pointed  out earlier,  an essential  requirement  of judicial adjudication  is that  the Judge  is impartial  and neutral and  is in  a position to apply his mind objectively to the  facts of  the case  put up before him. If he is pre- disposed or suffers from prejudices or has a biased mind, he disqualifies himself  from acting as a Judge. But frank, J.. of the United States in In re Linahan, 138 F. 2nd 650 says:-      "If,    however,     ’bias’     and      ’particularly’ be  defined to  mean      the total absence of preconceptions      in the  mind of  the judge, then no      one has  ever had  a fair trial and      no one  will. The human mind, even,      at infancy,  is no  blank piece  of      paper.    We    are    born    with      predispositions....Much   harm   is      done  by   the  myth  that,  merely      by.... taking the oath of office as      a judge,  a man  ceases to be human      and   strips    himself   of    all      predilections,      becomes       a      passionless thinking machine."      (See  also   Griffith  and  Street,      Principles  of  Administrative  Law      (1973 Edn.) 155; Judicial Review of      Administrative Action  by de  Smith      (1980 Edn.)  272; II Administrative      Law Treatise  by Davis  (1958 Edn.)      130.) 30.  These remarks  imply a  distinction between pre-judging of facts  specifically relating  to a party, as against pre- conceptions or  pre-dispositions about  general questions of law, policy or discretion. The implication is that though in the former  case, a  Judge would  disqualify himself, in the latter case,  he may  not. But  this question does not arise here and is left as it is. 31.   This Court  has already,  innumerable times, beginning with its  classic decision  in A.K.  Karaipak vs.  Union  of India AIR  1970 SC 150, laid down the need of "fair play" or "fair hearing" in quasi-judicial and administrative matters. The hearing  has to  be by a person sitting with an unbiased mind. To  the same effect is the decision in S.P. Kapoor vs. State of  Himachal Pradesh  AIR 1981  SC 2181. In an earlier decision in Mineral Development Limited vs. State of Bihar  AIR 1960 SC 468, it was held that the Revenue Minister, who had cancelled  the petitioner’s  licence  or  the  lease  of certain land,  could not  have taken part in the proceedings for cancellation  of licence  as there was political rivalry between the  petitioner and the Minister, who had also filed a criminal  case against  the petitioner. This principle has also been  applied in  cases under  labour laws  or  service laws, except where the cases were covered by the doctrine of necessity. In  Financial commissioner (Taxation), Punjab vs. Harbhajan  Singh   (1996)_  9   SCC  281,   the   settlement Commissioner was  held to  be not  competent to sit over his own earlier  order passed  as Settlement  Officer under  the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The maxim  Nemo Debet  Esse Judex  In Propria  Sua Causa was invoked in  Gurdip Singh  vs. State  of Punjab (1997) 10 SCC

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

641. 32.  The above  maxim as  also the  other principle based on the most  frequently quoted dictum of Lord Hewart C.J. in R. V. Sussex JJ., ex p. Mc Carthy (1924) 1 K.B. 256, 259, that;      "It is  of  fundamental  importance      that justice  should  not  only  be      done  but   should  manifestly  and      undoubtedly be seen to be done", constitute the well-recognised Rule Against Bias. 33.  Bias, as  pointed out  earlier, it  a condition of mind and, therefore,  it may  not always  be possible  to furnish actual proof  of bias.  but the  courts,  for  this  reason, cannot be  said to   be  in a crippled state. There are many ways to  discover bias; for example, by evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case or applying the tests of "real likelihood of  bias" or  "reasonable suspicion  of bias." de Smith in  Judicial Review  of  Administrative  Action,  1980 Edn., 262,  264, has  explained that  "reasonable suspicion" test  looks   mainly  to  outward  appearances  while  "real likelihood" test  focuses on  the court’s  own evaluation of the probabilities. 34.  In Metropolitan  Properties Co. v. Lannon, (198) W.L.R. 815, it was observed "whether there was a real likelihood of bias or  not has  to be  ascertained with reference to right minded persons; whether they would consider that there was a real likelihood of bias". Almost the same test has also been applied here  in an  old decision, namely, in Manak  Lal vs. Prem Chand,  Air 1957  SC 425.  In that  case, although  the Court found  that Chairman  of  the  Bar  Council  Tribunal, appointed by  the chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, to enquire into the misconduct of manak Lal, an advocate, on the complaint of one Prem chand, was not biased towards him, it was  held that  he should  not  have  presided  over  the proceedings to  give effect  to the  salutory principle that justice should  not only  be done, it should also be seen to be done  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Chairman,  who, undoubtedly,  was  a  senior  advocate  and  an  ex-Advocate General, had,  at one  time, represented  prem chand in some case. These principles have had their evolution in the field of Administrative  law but  the Courts  performing  judicial functions only  cannot be  excepted from the rule of bias as the Presiding  Officers of the Court have to hear and decide contentious issues  with an  unbiased mind.  the maxim  Nemo Debet Esse  Judex In  Propria Sua  Causa and  the  principle "Justice should  not only  be done  but should manifestly be seen to be done" can be legitimately invoked in their cases. 35.  Applying these  principles in the instant case, it will be seen  that although  the judgment  passed by  Mr. Justice Ajit kumar  Sengupta in  the first writ Petition in which he had given a direction that the respondents shall be promoted with effect  from 13.3.1980  was set  aside, he  (Mr.Justice Ajit  Kumar  Sengupta),  in  the  subsequent  writ  Petition between the  same  parties,  gave  a  declaration  that  the respondents shall  be treated  to have  been  promoted  with effect from 13.3.1980. Significantly, such a declaration was not prayed  for and  what was  prayed in the subsequent Writ Petition was  a direction  to the  State Government  to  pay arrears of  salary of  the  higher  post  with  effect  from 13.3.1980.  To   put  it  differently,  in  the  first  Writ Petition, Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta commanded "Promote the respondents  with effect  from 13.3.1980"; in the second Writ  Petition,   he  directed  "Treat  the  respondents  as promoted with  effect from  13.3.1980". There  is hardly any difference between  the two  judgments. In  fact, the second Writ Petition  constitutes a  crude attempt  to  revive  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

directions passed  by Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta in the first  judgment  and,  curiously,  Mr.  Justice  Ajit  Kumar Sengupta, sitting  in the  Division Bench,  wrote, a  second time, a  judgment which was already over-ruled. He garnished the judgment by innocuously providing that arrears would not be payable  to the  respondents  nor  will  the  respondents affect the  seniority of  other. But  the  garniture  cannot conceal the  deceptive innocence  as it  is  obvious,  on  a judicial scrutiny,  that paramount  purpose was  to re-write the over-ruled judgment. 36.  In view  of these  facts, we are constrained to observe that it  was  not  competent  for  Mr.  Justice  Ajit  Kumar Sengupta to  have presided  over  the  Bench  in  which  the impugned judgment was passed as he had already expressed his opinion in  the earlier  writ petition which was over-ruled. He should  have disassociated  himself from  that  Bench  in keeping   with the high traditions of the institution so  as to give  effect to the rule that "justice should not only be done, it  should manifestly be seen to have been done" apart from sitting  in appeal,  though collaterally,  over his own judgment. 37.  The appeals  are consequently allowed. The judgment and order dated  21.7.1992 passed  by the  division Bench of the Calcutta High  Court is  set aside  and  the  Writ  Petition (Matter No.  1449 of 1987) is dismissed without any order as to costs.