``We are constrained to observe that it was not competent for Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta to have presided over the bench in which the impugned judgement was passed as he had already expressed his opinion in the earlier writ petition which was overruled.

``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 judgement,'' a bench of Justice S Saghir Ahmad and Justice G B Pattanaik observed while allowing two appeals by the state of West Bengal and others.

Justice Ahmad, who wrote the judgement for the bench, prefaced it by saying ``Whether judicial obstinacy can be treated as a form of bias is the question which we intend to answer in theseappeals.''

Six computer assistants had challenged the denial of promotion to them in a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was allowed by Justice Sengupta, sitting singly, commanding the authorities concerned to promote the petitioners with effect from March 13, 1980. This direction was set aside. In a subsequent writ petition between the same parties, Justice Sengupta gave a declaration that the petitioners should be treated to have been promoted with effect from March 13, 1980.

Significantly, such a declaration was not prayed for and what was prayed was that a direction be issued to the State Government to pay arrears of salary of the high post with effect from March 13, 1980. ``There is hardly any difference between the two judgements. In fact, the second writ petition constitutes a crude attempt to revive the directions passed by Justice Sengutpa in the first judgement and, curiously, Justice Sengupta, sitting in the division bench, wrote, a second time, a judgement which wasalready overruled. He garnished the judgement by innocuously providing that arrears would not be payable to the petitioners before the High Court and respondents here nor would that affect the seniority of others. But, the garniture cannot conceal the deceptive innocence as it is obvious, on a judicial scrutiny, that the paramount purpose was to rewrite the overruled judgement,'' Justice Ahmad held in his 24-page judgement.

Justice Ahmad said that all judicial functionaries had necessarily to have an unflinching character to decide a case with an unbiased mind.

Judicial proceedings are held in open courts to ensure transparency, access to judicial records by way of inspection by the litigants or their lawyers and the facility of providing certified copies of records are factors which not only ensure transparency but also instill and inspire confidence in the impartiality of the court proceedings,'' the Judge added. Justice Ahmad pointed out, Judges are not infallible. As human beings, they can commitmistakes even in the best of their judgements reflective of their hard labour, impartial thinking and objective assessment of the problem put before them. ``If a judgement is overruled by the higher court, the Judicial discipline requires that the Judge whose judgement is overruled must submit to that judgement. He cannot, in the same proceedings or in collateral proceedings between the same parties, rewrite the overruled judgement,'' Justice Ahmad observed.