A judge or adjudicator must be impartial and free from any real likelihood of bias in order to ensure a fair and just decision-making process.

Anil K. Sen, J.

This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent directed against the judgment and order dated December 21, 1976, passed by our learned brother M.M. Dutt, J. in Civil Rule No. 4988(W) of 1972. That Rule was issued on a writ petition wherein the petitioner/respondent No. 1 before us challenged a selection penal constituted by the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway on March 28, 1972. By the order impugned, our learned brother had set aside the said panel upholding the petitioner's case that a part of the selection proceeding lacked fairness and impartiality. Feeling aggrieved, Union of India representing the Eastern Railway administration and its authorities have preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent No. 1, the petitioner in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was an employee of the ex-Bengal and Assam Railway before the said Railway merged into the Eastern Railway. He was recruited as a crewman and there is no dispute that by progressive promotion from time to time at the material time he was holding the rank of a Claims Inspector substantively in the scale of Rs. 200-300/- and was officiating in fortuitous vacancy as Commercial Supervisor in the grade of Rs. 370- 475/- According to the petitioner on August 16, 1971, the Eastern Railway administration issued a notice directing a selection to be made for substantive promotion to the rank of Commercial Inspectors, Commercial Supervisors, Good Shed Superintendents in the scale of Rs. 370-475/- and invited candidates including the petitioner to appear at a written test. Such a test was held on September 2, 1971, and the petitioner having qualified therein he was invited along with others to appear at a viva voce test which was held on February 18, 1972. According to the petitioner on completion of the tests so held the Chief Personnel Officer published a panel on March 28, 1972 of 13 successful candidates who were adjudged eligible for promotion to the aforesaid rank. The petitioner's name was not borne on the panel although 7 of his juniors were empanelled for such promotion. The petitioner challenged this selection proceeding on the ground that although he had meritorious service to his credit throughout his career he had been wrongfully excluded by the personal animosity of Bhanu Prakash, the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent who unfortunately bore grudge against him. In the writ petition the petitioner, having enumerated how from time to time his services were recognised by different authorities and how on such recognition he was being given awards or certificates even as late as in the year 1970, claimed that the duly qualified in the written test and on his personal estimation he considers himself to be much more eligible than many of the others who have been empanelled and there is no reason why he could not succeed in the viva voce test but for the fact that the said test was not an impartial one having been held by a committee presided over by Bhauu Prakash who was not well disposed towards the petitioner. In the writ petition he made certain allegations against the said Bhanu Prakash to the effect that the said Bhanu Prakash out of his personal animosity withdrew certain discretionary power vested in him in the matter of waiving of wharf-rage charge on jute consignments, caused serious harassment to the petitioner by issuing frequent transfer orders, by wrongfully excluding the petitioner from an earlier selection for the same post held in September 1970, which when challenged in a writ petition was departmentally dropped to avoid the allegations of malice against Bhanu Prakash to be gone info in court, by issuing a malicious charge sheet on May 5, 1971, on unsustainable charges which was similarly challenged in another writ petition and then by causing certain mala fide adverse reports to be recorded with reference to a back year in his service record. On all these allegations made against Bhanu