HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16369 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned letter, dated 31.07.1998, rejecting the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post, on compassionate grounds. 2. The husband of the petitioner, Sri P.Hruday Kumar, was working as a Blacksmith in the City Region of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He died on 25.09.1997, while in service. On 17.03.1998, the petitioner has made an application, seeking appointment in the respondent/Corporation, on compassionate grounds, in view of death of her husband in harness. Pursuant to her application, the petitioner was called for interview on 20.04.1998, to consider her case for the post of Cleaner, but however, through the impugned letter, dated 31.07.1998, she was informed that her claim was rejected, as she was not found suitable for appointment to the post of Conductor, in view of height restrictions. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though she was called for interview to consider her claim for appointment to the post of Cleaner, but, surprisingly, through the impugned letter, dated 31.07.1998, she was informed that her claim was considered for appointment to the post of Conductor and the same was rejected, as she was not found suitable to hold the said post in view of height restrictions. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was called for interview only to consider her claim for the post of Conductor, but not as a Cleaner. It is stated that through the letter, dated 07.04.1998, the petitioner was informed to appear before the Selection Committee on 20.04.1998, to consider her claim, but however, the Selection Committee, on noticing that she was not having the requisite height to hold the post of Conductor, rejected her claim. It is further stated that there is a ban in the Corporation on recruitment to other posts, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compassionate appointment. 5. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. 6. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was called for interview to consider her claim for appointment to the post of Cleaner, but from the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that her claim was considered for the post of Conductor. It is also not in dispute that at relevant point of time, the requisite height for appointment to the post of Conductor was 153 cms, and the petitioner was not meeting the said requirement. Though the petitioner has further contended that her claim was not considered for other suitable post, the respondents have categorically stated that there was ban on filling up of all other posts, and therefore, her case could not be considered against any other post. In this connection, the respondents have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of APSRTC v. Valluri Venkata Narayana[1], wherein this Court has held that when there was a ban imposed in an organization on filling up of certain posts, no direction can be given for appointment in those posts, on compassionate grounds. As much as the claim of the petitioner is based on a particular scheme, and when there was a ban imposed even as per the said scheme, no direction can be given contrary to the policy decision of the Corporation. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner is entitled for any additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment, this order will not preclude her from making a representation to the respondents for grant of such monetary benefit. If any such representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and an appropriate decision with regard to the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to such monetary benefit, shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the same shall be communicated to her. 8. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd January 2009. Pnv/ajr [1] 2003 (8) ALT 5