ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.

3. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 – R.S.Kavitha does not fulfill the height qualification as prescribed for appointment to the post of Conductor under Rule 59(b) of the Appendix-III of the Service Rules. In spite of respondent No.1 – R.S.Kavitha not fulfilling the aforesaid qualification, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant-Corporation to consider her candidature, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. We are unable to subscribe to the views expressed by the High Court. Such relaxation in the height qualification unless provided for in the recruitment rules and given due publicity in the notification inviting applications would be in violation of the Rules. This apart, it would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as numerous other candidates, who would be below the prescribed height, might have not applied for the advertised post. The impugned judgment of the High Court does indicate the existence of any provision of relaxation of the minimum heigh