JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 7.9.2001 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The petitioner had filed a writ of mandamus praying for a direction to consider the petitioner for regularisation of service as Chowkidar in view of the circular dated 28.5.1999, Annex.3. Ancillary reliefs have also been claimed. 3. The learned Single Judge found that there was no justification and legality in the government's decision to regularise the services of those daily wagers, who had completed 240 days as on. 31st December 1995. It was observed that the matter of recruitment is covered by the statutory rules and this indirect mode of recruitment would open the flood gates for appointment dehors the recruitment rules. Thus it was found that the decision is contrary to rules and also unconstitutional. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. In our view, a look at the circular, Annex.3 shows that it simply purported to be a one time measure, having been issued in 1999, to regularise the category of employees mentioned therein, who had put in requisite amount of service as on the cut off date being 31.12.1995. It may be noticed here that this type of order is in line with the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court directing regularisation of certain employees as on a particular cut off date, even in the phased manner. It is a different story that even after Annex.3 finding that persons entitled to be regularised had not been recommended by various Municipalities, Annex.4 was again issued in July 2000, not only this, in compliance of Annex.4, vide Annex.5 the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Municipality, certifying him to be possessing the requisite qualification, and about his work being satisfactory. 5. Of course, the writ petition was dismissed in limine, therefore, no reply was filed, but then the fact remains that the appeal was admitted and summons were sent to the respondents, which were served way-back on 4.3.2002 and appearance was also put in by the respondents as early as on 22.5.2002 but till the date no reply has been filed. However, learned counsel submitted that it may simply be recorded that he opposed the appeal on merits. 6. However, learned counsel submitted that it may simply be recorded that he opposed the appeal on merits. 6. We have considered the submissions and find, that in view of the fact that Annex.3 and 4 are in line with the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court directing regularisation as one time measure,'it cannot be said that there is any illegality in Annex.3 and 4, apart from the fact that they were not under challenge by the respondent, and Annex.5 has not been disputed by the respondent. 7. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with law (Annex.3 and 4), if not already regularised.Appeal Allowed. *******