Judgment :- Writ appeal is filed against the order dated 14.07.2000 made in W.P.No.4090 of 1998 filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent in TNG Transport/Ku-Kho.4/Pa.Pi/P2/0076 dated 15.1.98 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider and select the petitioner to the post of conductor by taking into consideration the height criteria which was already certified by the respondent corporation while the petitioner under went the temporary service in the respondent corporation. Elipe Dharma Rao, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4090 of 1998 dated 14.07.2000, wherein the order of the appellant dated 15.01.1998 was quashed on the ground that the writ petitioner is qualified for the post of conductor and that he has the requisite educational qualification to hold the said post. 2. The case of the writ petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows:- The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a conductor in the appellant Transport Corporation after verifying his height, weight and other educational qualifications by order dated 02.11.1996 on temporary basis. At the time of appointment, the writ petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as security deposit. He continued to function as a conductor from 02.11.1996 to 05.11.1997 and he has attended 177 trips. The appellant called for applications for appointment to the post of conductor and the writ petitioner’s name was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He appeared for the interview on 09.12.1997 and produced all the required records to prove that he is eligible to be appointed as conductor in the appellant Transport Corporation. But his claim was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the minimum height. Against the rejection order, the writ petition was filed. 3. The appellant has not filed any counter in the writ petition. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge held that even at the time of initial appointment, only after verification of the educational qualification, height, weight and other relevant particulars, the writ petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. At the time of initial appointment, the writ petitioner’s weight was 50 kgs and height was 161 cms. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge held that even at the time of initial appointment, only after verification of the educational qualification, height, weight and other relevant particulars, the writ petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. At the time of initial appointment, the writ petitioner’s weight was 50 kgs and height was 161 cms. Thereafter, after a lapse of three years, the appellant verified the same particulars and disqualified the writ petitioner on the ground that he is not having the minimum height. For the above reasons, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, against which the present writ appeal is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation has contended that the order of learned Single Judge is clearly vitiated by material error of law and also suffers from wrongful exercise of jurisdiction vested on him. At the time of initial appointment on temporary basis, the verification of the records is different from the verification of the records at the time of permanent appointment and the writ petitioner/respondent herein has to satisfy the requirements prescribed as per the common service rules, which is binding on all the Transport Corporation and their employees for the post of conductors. 6. As per the above said rules, the candidate must have passed in S.S.L.C. Examination and the minimum height is 160 cms and weight is 45 kgs. Since the writ petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of height, and he is only 159.4 cms, he is not eligible to be appointed as conductor in the appellant Transport Corporation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have allowed the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also raised several other grounds. But as seen from the order of the learned Single Judge and the order impugned in the writ petition, it is clear that the appellant Transport Corporation has not taken any care to mention what is the required height as per the common service Rules and what is the height of the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is nothing but a general order passed by the appellant Transport Corporation without application of their mind. Therefore, it is nothing but a general order passed by the appellant Transport Corporation without application of their mind. Moreover, the appellant Transport Corporation did not choose to file their counter affidavit in the writ petition and the same was mentioned only during the course of argument in the writ petition as well as in the grounds of this writ appeal. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation in this appeal. 8. As the appellant Transport Corporation failed to indicate the deficiency of height of the writ petitioner in their impugned order and also having not taken any steps to file counter affidavit in the writ petition, for the first time in the writ appeal, they cannot argue the same without any foundation. Initially, the writ petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in the year 1996 and from the records, it is seen that the appellant Transport Corporation only after being satisfied that the petitioner has possessed the required educational qualification, height and weight and also has a valid licence to be appointed as a conductor, appointed the writ petitioner as a conductor. The writ petitioner worked as a temporary conductor for one year and thereafter, he appeared for appointment to the post of conductor on permanent basis. The appellant Transport Corporation, therefore cannot take a different stand at that juncture. 9. Hence, we are entirely agreeing with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to direct the appellant Transport Corporation to give appropriate appointment order to the writ petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.