The Kcp Ltd. Vs. the Superintending Engineer.

.....it was, accordingly, submitted that respondent no.1 was ineligible for appointment to the post of assistant registrar. the division bench found and held that respondent no.1 was not eligible to be considered for the post of deputy registrar and, hence, rejected his case in so far that post is concerned. coming, however, to the post of assistant registrar, the division bench took the view that selection committee had not assigned any reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above respondent no.1 in the select list. no material has been produced before us to show that it is the selection committee which upon assessment of merit of the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5, found appellant was less meritorious than the respondent nos. 4 and 5. in the first place the division bench overlooked that according to the statutory eligibility criterion only a section officer or a p.a.-cum-stenographer was eligible to be considered for appointment as assistant registrar and respondent no.1 was a head assistant. the division bench seems to have overlooked that while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were at ranks iv and v in the select list, respondent no.1 was at rank xiii and by brining him at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the division bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven candidates who figured in between from rank vi to xii and who were above respondent no.1......the letter is dated 5.3.2011 and that has been acknowledged by the respondent. it is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to avoid disconnection and maintain cordiality, petitioner is paying the amount as per the bill raised. however, their objections that the reduction in the demand quota and energy quota is arbitrary has been set out in the letters. 4. in this regard, it is stated by the petitioner that the superintending engineer, chennai (north) circle, has been repeatedly requested to reconsider and restore the demand quota and energy quota as per proceedings dated 15.6.2009 which has not been do so far. hence, the present writ petition has been filed.5. at this point of time, this court is not inclined to consider the merits and the demerits of the petitioner's claim, except to direct the respondent to consider the representation/letter dated 5.3.2011 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on all aspects of the claim made as per law and pass a reasoned order on merits. petitioner shall also be given personal hearing in this matter before deciding the issue.6. the writ petition is disposed of as above. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.