A judge has the power to recall an unsigned order in exceptional circumstances, such as when the judge realizes that there was an inadvertent mistake in the order or when a feature that was not considered by the court is brought to its attention.

Bhattacharya, J.

1. THE following question has been referred to this Bench for decision by the Hon'ble Chief Justice at the instance of a learned Single Judge:

"Is it not open to a Judge, in exceptional circumstances upon putting the parties on notice and after recording reasons, to correct an inadvertent mistake which he realizes he had committed while dictating an order in open Court by recalling the order so dictated before it is signed and thereafter to hear the parties afresh?"

2. THE present reference arises under the following circumstances. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Dipankar Datta, J.) disposed of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by dictating an order in open Court on November 11, 2010. By the said order, the District Inspector of School (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, was directed to consider the issue of approval of a panel prepared by the Authority of Jalpaiguri High School for recruitment to a vacant post of clerk therein. The writ petitioner claimed that he secured the first position in the panel. If the approval to the panel were accorded, he would be offered appointment to such post. He was, therefore, eager to have the panel approved.

3. AFTER the order was transcribed, the file was placed before His Lordship on the following day for signature. While reading the transcript of the order that was dictated on the previous day, His Lordship also perused the writ application for verifying whether the recording of facts in the order was correct or not. It was then that His Lordship felt that His Lordship shouid not have passed the order that was pronounced on November 11, 2010. His Lordship found that there was a mistake in proceeding on the basis of the fact that the interview was conducted by the school authority on February 18, 2009 whereas it was really conducted on February 18, 2010. His Lordship, in the order of reference, however, did not discuss in detail why the date of interview was so material for a decision on the writ petition. However, His Lordship was convinced that it was a fit case where the unsigned order ought to be recalled, and after hearing the parties de novo, a fresh order should be passed either maintaining the earlier view or taking a different one.

4. BUT a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suvra Daluiv. Netaji Subhas Open University and Ors., reported in (2010)1 Cal HN 302, recorded in the order of reference, stood in His Lordship's way in taking the said recourse. In Suvra Dalui(supra), the Division Bench was considering a writ- appeal against an earlier order of His Lordship (Dipankar Datta, J.) in a different matter dismissing a writ application. His Lordship, in that case, had initially passed an order dictated in Court whereby the writ application was allowed but thereafter, being doubtful of the authenticity of the claim of the appellant, felt that the order ought not to have been passed and accordingly, changed His Lordship's mind and directed that the dictated order should not be transcribed. The writ application was enlisted as 'To be mentioned' two days thereafter, and upon hearing the parties, His Lordship expressed his mind why the untranscribed order should be recalled and passed an order to that effect. A further date was fixed for hearing the parties. On that date, the parties were heard and on this occasion, the writ application was dismissed. Challenging the order of dismissal the writ application, the appeal was preferred before the Division Bench which allowed the appeal by setting aside the order under the appeal.

5. ACCORDING to the Division Bench, in view of Order 20 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Court is left with no other alternative but to sign the order pronounced in open Court and such order could only be recalled according to well established principles of law.

6. THE Division Bench held that by virtue of the Rules framed by this Court, the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedu