THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus SHIV ANANDPATHAK

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 11-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
A 
,;_-~ 
v. 
SHIV ANAND A PATHAK 
FEBRUARY 11, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
,I.-
Letters Patent (Calcutta High Court)-Letters Patent appeal-
Underlying philosophy-Hierarchy of courts-Writ petitioi:z seeking promotion 
to higher post-Single judge holding that promotions to be effected from a 
certain date-Writ Appeal by certain other affected parties~udgment modified c 
directing to consider the cases of the affected parties along with the original 
writ petitioners-Promotions made accordingly-Another writ petition filed 
by original writ petitioners-Seeking arrears of salary and allowances w.ef 
the date they were directed to be promoted by the Single Judge in the earlier 
writ petition-Writ petition disposed of directing the authorities to consider D 
cases iii accordance with law-Writ appeal preferred-Disposed of by Division 
Bench comprising the judge who decided the earlier writ petition, holding 
appellants to have been promoted from the date mentioned in the earlier writ 
petition-Held-The judge not competent to have presided over the Bench 
since he had expressed his opinion in the earlier writ petition. 
E 
Practice and Procedure-Procedure under Art 226-Not strictly in 
accordance with CPC; to follow principl~s of natural justiCe. 
.. 
Administrative /aw-Bias-Meaning and forms-Explained-Judge to F 
.,_ 
have an unbiased mind during hearing-Judicial functionaries not exempt 
~! 
from the rule of bias-Bias on account of judicial obstinacy-Doctrine of 
necessity. 
Judicial Propriety-Single judge passing a judgmen~ in a writ petition-
Division Bench overruling the said judgment-Another writ petition filed in G 
the same matter-Writ petition disposed of-,-Writ appea/~udgment given by 
'-r 
~ 
Bench comprising the same earlier judge who had allowed the first writ 
' 
petition-Held-The judgment constitutes an attempt to revive the directions 
of the earlier overruled judgment-A judge not to rewrite his own judgment 
sitting in appeal-The judge should have dissociated himself from the Bench. H 
811 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A 
Maxims-Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa-Applicability 
t:
'C:
ef 
~---
In the West Bengal Subordinate Labour Sen'ice, 1>romotions to the 
posts of Inspector of Wages etc., were made, fifty percent by direct recruitment 
and fifty percent by promotion. The Assistant Com1mters were one of the 
B feeder posts for promotions ot the said posts. The respondents, who were 
working as Assistant Computors filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High 
Court seeking promotion to these 1>osts. The writ p~tition came up before a 
Single judge (Justice 'A'), wherein it was directed that promotions were to 
he given to the writ petitioners with effect from 13.3.80. A writ appeal was 
C filed against this judgment by certain other affected parties. The Division 
Bench hy its order dated 17-l-i985 modified the Judgment given by the 
Single Judge and directed that the appellants as also the writ petitioners 
were to be considered for promotion in accordance with law. Complying with 
the said directions the State of West Bengal promoted the employees drawn 
from all categories including the writ petitioner, by its order dated 16.4.115 
D and 6.6.1985. Two of the original writ petitioners filed another writ petition 
seeking arrears of salary and allowances with effect from 13-03-1980. The 
writ petition was disposed of by Single judge holding that there was. no 
ground to interfere in the matter and the authorities would be free to 
consider the case of the writ petitioners in accordance with law. An appeal 
E was preferred against the said judgment. The said appeal came up for hearing 
before a Division Bench presided over by justice" A', who had allowed the 
first :writ petition. The Division bench allowed the appeal with the direction 
t)Jat the writ appellants have to be treated as promoted with effect from 13-
03-1980, but were not entitled to any areas of salary from that date. It was 
further directed that the basic pay in the scale of pay was to be treating 
F 13.3.80 as the date of promotion without affecting the seniority and benefits 
of persons already promoted. The State of West Bengal challenged the said 
judgment in the present appeal. 
The ap1>ellants contented that Justice 'A' was not competent to have 
G expressed his views sitting in the Division Bench in tbe same matter between 
the same parties though initiated on a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.