Union of IndiA. Vs. Cementone.

.....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......drawn up in the manner prescribed by order xli r.1 of the code. therefore, it has partial application of aforesaid provision of code not its entirety. at present order xli r.1 enables the litigant to prefer appeal with the certified copy of the judgment. however, original side rules has not been amended in the line of the code of civil procedure to enable the litigant to prefer appeal by presenting memorandum of appeal annexing certified copy of the judgment instead of decree or order. 4. accordingly, we direct the department not to accept the memorandum of appeal in the original side without adherence to the aforesaid provision until suitable amendment in the line of rule 1 of order xli of cpc is made by this court. however, the certified copy of the judgment may be relevant at the time of hearing of any application for interim relief, but under usual procedure an appeal can be preferred without the certified copy of the decree or order with leave of the appeal court on condition that parties will have to take steps for getting the decree or order drawn up and also for obtaining certified copy within the period of limitation. 5. in view of the aforesaid proposition this appeal and the application are dismissed. however, liberty is given to take up a fresh one in accordance with the rules of this court. we feel registrar, original side is to take steps for necessary amendment of the above provision. registrar, original side, department concerned and all parties are to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.