S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals involving similar questions of fact and law were taken-up foe hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter may be noticed from Writ Appeal No. 1129 of 1997. The writ petitioner-respondent therein filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:. . . that the Hon ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as lady Conductor in the respondents corporation and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case. . . . to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus setting aside the Proceedings no. HC/402 (16)97/rm. N dated 15-3-1997 as bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently allow the petitioner to work as a lady Conductor in respondent-Corporation in view of Medical certificate issued by Civil Surgeon of government Hospital, Nalgonda and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the qualification for appointment by way of promotion to the post of Conductor, Grade- ii is covered by a Regulation known as recruitment Regulations for the post of conductor Grade-II, the relevant provisions whereof reads thus:"to be filled by selection (b) by promotion of any other category of employees in the lower Grade, possessing the requisite qualifications: and 1. For promotion (b) any other category of employee in the lower-grade must have passed SSC or its equivalent examination and possess a height of 1. 53 metres. " ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH the vires of the said regulation has not been questioned, the learned single Judge appears to have passed the impugned judgment on two counts; firstly considering the said regulations vis-a-vis the Regulations prevailing in other service and secondly upon obtaining a report from a Doctor of the High Court Dispensary despite the fact that the writ petitioner- respondent had already been examined twice and was found to be of the height of 152. 5 cms. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as the first ground is concerned, the learned single Judge held:. . . 5 cms. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as the first ground is concerned, the learned single Judge held:. . . Normally a Conductor serving in a bus on a mofussil route is not expected to move in the vehicle and the passenger is expected to go to the Conductor to collect the ticket before entering the bus. This is a known fact to any individual who is accustomed to travel on R. T. C. buses. Even assuming for a moment that the Conductor is expected to move up in the vehicle it is very rare but not like buses running on the city routes. Hence, it is not difficult for a Conductor whose height fell short of 153 cms. to move in the bus. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the report of the Doctor of the this Court s dispensary vis-a-vis the reports of the other Medical boards, it was held:. . . . . . in the certificate dated 22-8-1997 the doctor certified the petitioner s height is 5 i" or 154. 94 cms. From this it is evident, while the Doctors of the respondent- corporation were of the opinion that the petitioner s height is only 152. 5 cms. the doctors working at Nalgonda General hospital, Nalgonda and at the High Court dispensary certified that the height of the petitioner is above 153 cms. In fact, the standing Counsel for the respondent- corporation opposed the report of the doctor attached to the High Court Dispensary, by stating that the height of the petitioner 5 1" is converted it would be less than 153 cms. under a mistaken impression that 1" is equivalent to 2. 5 cms. But from the conversion table published under the standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985, 1" is equivalent to 2. 54 cms. It is not in dispute that even according to the respondents her height is 5 . 1" but while converting into cms. the doctors attached to the respondent- corporation calculated 2. 5 cms. as one inch and certified that the petitioner s height is only 152. 5 cms. Hence, 1 am prepared to act upon the certificates given by the superintendent, Government General hospital, Nalgonda and the Civil Assistant surgeon, High Court Dispensary and hold that the height of the petitioner is 154. 94 cms. 5 cms. as one inch and certified that the petitioner s height is only 152. 5 cms. Hence, 1 am prepared to act upon the certificates given by the superintendent, Government General hospital, Nalgonda and the Civil Assistant surgeon, High Court Dispensary and hold that the height of the petitioner is 154. 94 cms. In the light of the height of the petitioner as decided by the Doctors attached to the High court Dispensary and the Superintendent, government General Hospital, Nalgonda, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment as conductor Grade-III. ( 7 ) THE impugned order in Writ Appeal no. 1053 of 1998 was passed following the aforementioned judgment and the appeal preferred there against was dismissed in limine, where against the appellants- corporation filed an application for grant of Special Leave before the Apex Court. By an order dated 20-10-2000 the Apex court in C. A. No. 6046 of 2000 passed the following order: leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. On the facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 10th July, 1998 and remand the case back to the appellate authority to be taken up and disposed of along with Writ Appeal No. 1129/97 which is pending in the High Court. Cost on the parties. ( 8 ) THESE two appeals have been listed before us in terms of the aforementioned directions. ( 9 ) THE contentions, which are raised in these appeals, are that the Court cannot prescribe any qualification, which is essential in nature, contrary to and inconsistent with the statutory regulations. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in J. Rangaswamy v. Government of Andhra pradesh and others, AIR 1990 SC 535 = 1990 (1) SCC 288 , and District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655 . As regards the second contention, it was submitted that the learned single Judge has adopted a course of acti n, which is unknown in law. ( 10 ) IT is trite that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot rewrite legislation. It can only interpret the same and in the event it is found that the same is unconstitutional strike the same down. ( 10 ) IT is trite that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot rewrite legislation. It can only interpret the same and in the event it is found that the same is unconstitutional strike the same down. ( 11 ) THE learned single Judge in our considered opinion committed an error insofar as he compared the height of the candidates in other services and proceeded to determine the question on that basis and in particular having regard to the fact that in some services the height required for appointment of a women candidate is less than her male counterpart. ( 12 ) IT has not been pointed out that there exists a power of relaxation. The writ petitioners-respondents has also not questioned the vires of the said Regulation inter alia on the ground that the same does not pass the test of the principle of wedneshury unreasonableness. No question was raised to the effect that the said regulation is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be in accordance with law. ( 13 ) AS regards the second contention, it would be necessary to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Tripura sundari Devi (supra ). Therein, the Apex court while affirming the decision taken by the authorities of the Education Department denying appointment to a candidate selected as teacher, held: 6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. . . . It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. . . . ( 14 ) INSOFAR as the 2nd contention is concerned, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Tripura Sundari devi (supra), we are of the opinion that if there existed any dispute as regards the height of the writ petitioners, the matter ought to have been referred to any other medical Board of a prominent General hospital. ( 15 ) AS the writ petitioners have questioned the correctness or otherwise of the reports regarding their hights as measured by the Doctors working in the nalgonda General Hospital and appellant- corporation, in our opinion, the better course would be to direct the Medical board of the Osmania General Hospital, hyderabad to take fresh measurements of the writ petitioners and for the said purpose the appellant-Corporation can refer the writ petitioners-respondents to the said medical Board. Such a reference should be made by the appellant-Corporation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement. ( 16 ) WITH the aforementioned observations and directions, the impugned order of the learned single Judge is modified. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ( 17 ) AFTER pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent in WA No. 1129 of 1997 submit that the case of the petitioner had already been considered. Mr. Harnath, learned Standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation, however, stated that he is not in a position to say whether the appellants have considered the case of the respondent in WA No. 1 129 of 1997 and appointed her in the post of conductor. In view of the submission made by Mr. Harnath, we cannot pass any specific order in relation to respondent in wa No. 1129 of 1997.