IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20727 of 2000 Between: 1 Obulamma W/o. Late Obulesu R/o. Rangampalle Village, Malinenipatnam -- Post, Atlur Mandal, Cuddapah District. 2 P. Obulaiah, S/o. late Obulesu R/o. Rangampalle Village, Malinenipatnam -- Post, Atlur Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Regional Manager, Road Transport Corporation, Cuddapah. 2 The Personal Officer, Road Transport Corporation, Cuddapah Reion, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the 2nd petitioner in the posts Sweeper, Attender, Cleaner in Road Transport Corporation, Badvel Depot on compassionate grounds as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, consequetnly direct the respondents to give appointment to the second petitioner in the Road Transport Corporation, Badvel Depot any of the suitable post and pass such other order or orders as are deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners :SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20727 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not employing the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds in the respondent-Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary and seeks directions to appoint the 2nd petitioner in a suitable post. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the husband of the 1st petitioner by name Sri Patluru Obulesu, was working as a Conductor in the respondent – Corporation in Badvel Depot of Kadapa District. Unfortunately, while in service, he died on 25 th of October 1997, leaving behind his wife i.e. the 1st petitioner and children. The 1st petitioner has claimed the beneﬁt of compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner, who is her son. Though the case of 2nd petitioner was considered by calling him to the interview by the Selection Committee, and further, interviewing him on 3rd of August 2000, but however, his claim was rejected on the ground that he was not meeting the height requirement as per the recruitment conditions. It is stated that the height of the 2nd petitioner was found to be 149.7 cms., against the prescribed height of 153 cms., for the post of Conductor. The petitioners contend that since the case of 2nd petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor was rejected, the respondents ought to have considered his case for appointment in a suitable post. But the respondents have rejected his case, conﬁning the claim only for the post of Conductor. 3. Counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondents, wherein it is categorically stated that as per the recruitment conditions for appointment to the post of Conductor, the required height is 153 cms., and as it was found during the examination that the height of 2nd petitioner was only 149.7 cms., his claim was rejected. It is further stated that though there are circular instructions to relax the height to the extent of 2 cms., but however, as the diﬀerence of height in this case is more than 2 cms., the 2nd petitioner could not come up for selections. It is further averred in the counter aﬃdavit that now there is a total ban imposed in the Corporation for direct recruitment to all the posts, except to the posts of Driver Grade-II, Conductor Grade-II and Cleaners, which are productive in nature. The respondents have placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of APSRTC v. Kaiser Begum[1], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of this Court and held that the case of petitioner need not be considered when there is a ban imposed in APSRTC and also when there are no sanctioned vacancies. 4. Though the learned counsel for petitioners seeks directions for grant of exemption in height, but unless such a provision exists in the scheme, no such direction can be given. It is not in dispute that for the post of Conductor, there is height requirement of 153 cms., and the petitioner’s case was rejected as his height is only 149.7 cms. Even as per the Circular instructions issued, relaxation in height is permissible only to the extent of 2 cms. Asmuch as the shortage of height in this case is more than 2 cms., no directions can be given for relaxation of height. 5. In the cases of appointments on compassionate grounds, the rights of the parties would be governed by the provisions contained under the scheme framed for such appointments, but not beyond the scheme. In the absence of any provision for relaxation of height in the scheme, no direction can be given for relaxing the height requirement. In any event, as much as it is stated that there is a ban imposed in the Corporation for appointments, no direction can be given after this length of time, to extend the beneﬁt of appointment on compassionate grounds. At the same time, as the respondents did not dispute the entitlement of petitioners to the additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of compassionate appointment, I direct the 1st petitioner to make a fresh representation now, seeking such additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of appointment. If any such application is ﬁled claiming additional monetary beneﬁt, the respondents shall consider and decide the entitlement and quantum of such monetary beneﬁt within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation and take steps for payment of such amount to the 1st petitioner, without any further delay. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th October 2008 ajr [1] 1998 (9) SCC 398