JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR,C.J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. AS short question is involved, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge, dated 30th July, 2012, in CWP No. 8029 of 2011 C, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed with direction to the respondents-appellants to consider the case of the respondent in the light of the decision referred to in paragraph 2 (in the case of Tara Chand and others versus State of H.P. & another), decided on 10th August, 2011. 3. THE principal grievance of the appellants is that the crucial fact asserted by the appellants in the reply-affidavit filed to oppose the writ petition about the eligibility of the respondent has not been examined by the learned Single Judge at all. In the reply affidavit, amongst others, the appellants have asserted thus: "Since the petitioner is not fulfilling the requisite qualification as per the R&P rules in vogue and as such is not eligible for the promotion to the post of HDO. Hence the action of the respondent department in no way is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, unlawful and discriminatory as averred in this para." 4. WE are in agreement with the grievance of the appellants that the question regarding eligibility of the respondent has not been considered, whereas the matter has been disposed of merely with reference to the judgment in the unreported case, referred to above. In the circumstances, the only option is to set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties before the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh, in accordance with law. Appeal succeeds accordingly.