Manish Agarwal and ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

.....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......parties have also been admitted since the statements contained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the summons have not been questioned in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition. the defendant does not indicate that the defendant is entitled to protection under the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1997. paragraph 6(h) of the affidavit in support of the summons claims the monthly rent to be in excess of rs.51,000/- and a service charge component of over rs.25,000/- for a total monthly pay-out in excess of rs.77,000/-. 3. there is no denial of such fact in the defendants affidavit. in view of the case made out by the plaintiffs and the complete lack of defence of the defendant, there will be a decree in terms of prayer (a) of the masters summons dated january 13, 2010. mr. sarathi dasgupta, advocate, is appointed special referee for the purpose of assessing the mesne profits from the appropriate date which the plaintiffs have suggested to be september 7, 2009. 4. the special referee should complete the exercise within a period of four months from date and he will be paid a consolidated remuneration of 6000 gm to be shared by the parties in equal measure. in the event the defendant does not cooperate in the assessment of mesne profits, the special referee will be entitled to proceed in the absence of the defendant but by recording adequate reasons therefore. 5. ga no.144 of 2010 is allowed as above. the plaintiffs will also be entitled to costs of the application assessed at 200 gm. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.