JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, 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 10th August, 2011, in CWP (T) No. 8989 of 2008, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed with direction to the respondents-appellants to consider the case of the respondents in the light of the two decisions referred to in paragraph 2 (in the cases of Sushila Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another, being CWP (T) No. 2140 of 2008 and Sairu Ram Kashyap versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, being CWP (T) No. 2151 of 2008, decided on 14th July, 2010). 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 respondents has not been examined by the learned Single Judge at all. In the reply affidavit, amongst others, the appellants have asserted thus: "In this way, since the applicants are not B.Sc. of (Hort.) and therefore not eligible as per aforesaid rider, they can not be either considered or promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officers, as claimed by them in the present O.A. As such, the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed straightway." 4. WE are in agreement with the grievance of the appellants that the question regarding eligibility of the respondents has not been considered, whereas the matter has been disposed of merely with reference to the judgments in the two unreported cases, 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.