JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.Venkateswerllu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief :-

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing impugned proceedings No.E- 42099/CA/DOC/SS/2013/9086, dated 22.08.2013 in not considering the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment as a constable/GD (General Duty) or any suitable post is illegal, arbitrary and Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and call for records leading upto the impugned proceedings and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment for the post of constable/GD or any suitable post in the existing vacancies and appoint the petitioner forthwith and pass such other orders as it may deem fit and just.”

3. The Petitioner is the widow of late Murala Satyanarayana, who was posted as constable and died while in service, on 09.11.2006. She applied for compassionate appointment for the post of Constable/GD (General Duty) or any suitable post in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short „CISF’). Vide letter No.E-42099/Comp.apptt/NLC/ADM-III/11/3768, dated 13.04.2011, she was called for recruitment on the post of Head Constable/Clerk in CISF. In the recruitment process, she was declared medically fit but subject to relaxation of 10 cms in height, for which, his case was recommended by the Recruitment Board as well as IG/SS for relaxation in height, for the post of Constable/GD. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs did not approve for such relaxation and the same was intimated to the petitioner on 12.03.2012 vide letter No.(52), dated 22/23.02.2012.

4. The petitioner re-submitted an application dated 24.09.2012 to re-consider her case by providing compassionate appointment in CISF as HC/Clerk (Female), upon which the matter was re-examined and was closed vide order dated 12.11.2012, intimated to the petitioner vide the proceedings No.E.42099/CA/DOC/SS/2013, dated 22.08.2013 that her candidature might not be considered again as the height criteria for Female Constable/GD and Female HC/Clerk was the same.

5. Sri K. Venkateswerllu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order does not give any cogent reasons as to why relaxation in height of 10 cms cannot be granted, when the petitioner had applied on compassionate ground. He further submits that the height criteria for Female HC/Clerk is not the same as the height criteria for Female Constable/GD and in any case for the post of Clerk, the height criterion deserves relaxation in the nature of the work and duties of the post which is different from the post of Constable/GD.

6. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance on the impugned order submits that the height criteria for Female Constable/GD and Female HC/Clerk is same. The Ministry of Home Affairs rejected reconsideration as the relaxation was rejected earlier and in this respect there is no illegality in the impugned order.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. It is apt to reproduce the impugned order as under:-