ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

3. The appellant-Corporation has challenged the order of the High Court dated April 21, 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the revision (sic) (review) petition of the respondent directing the Corporation to employ him in terms of the questioned circular.

4. The short facts are, on September 30 1992, the father of respondent, who was working as Conductor, retired. Thereafter, an application was moved for appointment under the ex-employees children quota provided vide circular dated November 7, 1986 as amended by one dated November 26, 1987. This claim of the respondent was rejected by the Corporation on the ground that his brother named K. Muralikrishna was already appointed to the post of Conductor purely on humanitarian grounds. Subsequently, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court where the learned single Judge initially directed the respondent to submit a fresh application to the concerned respondent. The Corporation again rejected the claim of the respondent on the same ground. It is also relevant to mention here that on February 15, 1995, the appellant cancelled/withdrew the 10% vacancies whi