Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 619   OF 2013    [Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.4424 of 2011]

The Managing Director, TNSTC & Anr. .. Appellants

VERSUS

R.S.Kavitha & Ors.              ..Respondents  

 O R D E R

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.

Page 2

2

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  height  

criteria. The learned counsel for the respondents  

has  also  not  pointed  out  any  provision  in  the  

recruitment rules providing for relaxation of any  

qualification.  Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  

uphold  the  direction  in  relation  to  Respondent  

No.1.  So  far  as  respondent  No.2  –  M.Revathi  is  

concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for  

the appellants that her candidature was rejected  

only  because  she  had  failed  to  produce  the  

necessary  certificate  showing  that  she  was  

qualified to administer First Aid, at the time of

Page 3

3

interview.  This  is  not  a  mandatory  requirement  

either under the recruitment rules or any statutory  

instructions. In any event, learned counsel for the  

appellants has accepted that her candidature can be  

considered,  provided  she  produces  the  necessary  

certificate even at this stage. It is accepted that  

she fulfils the prescribed qualifications under the  

rules. In view of the above, we see no reason as to  

why her candidature cannot be considered upon such  

a certificate being produced by respondent No.2 –  

M.Revathi.  

5. The  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

cannot  be  sustained  so  far  as  it  relates  to  

respondent  No.1  and  the  same  is  set  aside.  The  

appeal is partly allowed. No costs.     

…………………………………………………….J      [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

…………………………………………………J.            [Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi; January 18, 2013.