Judicial obstinacy as bias: judge disqualified. Promotion and arrears dispute resolved. Recusal required for impartiality.

The Supreme Court held that "judicial obstinacy" can amount to bias, disqualifying a judge from acting impartially. Regarding the promotion and arrears of salary for Assistant Computers, the Court found that the Division Bench's decision, including the judge who initially directed the promotion, was a reiteration of the overruled judgment. Additionally, the Court ruled that the judge who had previously decided a related matter should have recused himself from the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Division Bench's judgment was set aside, with the second writ petition dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether "judicial obstinacy" can be treated as a form of "bias".
2. Whether the Assistant Computers were entitled to promotion and arrears of salary from 13th March 1980.
3. Whether the judge who had previously decided a related matter should have recused himself from the Division Bench hearing the appeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Judicial Obstinacy as Bias
The Supreme Court examined whether "judicial obstinacy" could be considered a form of "bias". The judgment emphasized that bias, including judicial obstinacy, disqualifies a judge from acting impartially. The court noted that if a judge's earlier decision is overruled, judicial discipline requires that judge to submit to the higher court's judgment and not reiterate their overruled views in the same or related proceedings.

Issue 2: Promotion and Arrears of Salary
The case involved the promotion of Assistant Computers to the West Bengal Subordinate Labour Service. Initially, a single judge had directed their promotion with effect from 13th March 1980, but this was modified by a Division Bench to consider promotions in accordance with the prescribed rules. Despite this, the Assistant Computers filed another writ petition seeking arrears of salary from 13th March 1980. The Division Bench, including the same judge who had given the initial direction, ruled that the Assistant Computers should be treated as promoted from 13th March 1980 but without arrears of salary. The Supreme Court found this to be a reiteration of the overruled judgment.

Issue 3: Recusal of the Judge
The Supreme Court held that Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta, who had previously decided the related matter, should not have sat in the Division Bench to hear the appeal. The court emphasized that a judge must disassociate from cases where they have previously expressed a strong opinion, to maintain the principle that "justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done".

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order dated 21.7.1992 by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court were set aside. The second writ petition (Matter No. 1449 of 1987) was dismissed without any order as to costs.

---