Order

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

2. 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.

3. We find that the writ petition involved disputed issues regarding eligibility. The manner in which the High Court has d