V.M.SAHAI, J. - (1.)COUNSEL for the parties agree that this appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage without calling for affidavit-in-reply. In view of the statement made by both the counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal at the admission stage itself for final disposal.
(2.)WE have heard Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. Kalpesh N. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This Intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 26.07.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4892 of 1998. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 2 of his judgment has observed that the petitioner has joined his service as daily wager at Karaghogha Irrigation Project on 21.01.1988. The direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the respondents to consider the claim of the respondent / petitioner for regularizing his service.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has urged that before the learned Single Judge, affidavit-in-reply was filed wherein in paragraph 5, it has been clearly mentioned that the respondent started work from 11.08.1988 and had not completed 240 days as on 01.10.1988. The respondent remained absent for 9 months from October 1987 to 10.08.1988 and the respondent worked for only 19 days between 27.09.1987 to 31.10.1988.

(3.)ACCORDING to learned counsel for the respondent, he has also filed material before the learned Single Judge in support of his claim.
Neither the affidavit-in-reply filed by the appellants nor the documents filed by the appellants has been considered by the learned Single Judge. Since the learned Single Judge has not considered the affidavit-in-reply as well as documents filed by the appellants, the order passed by learned Single Judge directing the appellants for considering his claim for regularization cannot be maintained. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment dated 26.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4892 of 1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by us in this judgment.