Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) Though many points were urged in support of the appeal relating to the eligibility of respondent No. 2 to be appointed as Chief, Town and Planning Division, we do not think it necessary to go into this aspect in detail. While issuing notice on 8-10-2004, it was indicated that the impugned order of the High Court being practically non-speaking and non-reasoned, the matter required to be set aside and remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal by a speaking order. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the High Court did not even indicate reasons as to why the respondent No. 2 was held to be eligible and/or to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In response Mr. R. F. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that respondent No. 2 clearly fulfilled eligibility criteria and made reference to various documents in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court and in this Court in this regard.;