Judgment : Oral Judgment: (Swatanter Kumar, C.J.) Despite the fact that this petition was filed in the year 1996 and notice was issued, no reply has been filed on the court record. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Cook in Central Industrial Security Force on 12th February, 1983. In the year 1989, he was appointed as Constable. As he was short of prescribed height of 167 cms, he was granted relaxation by 2.3 cms. According to the petitioner, his service record is good and was also considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector/Clerk. The height prescribed thereof is 167 cms. but the petitioner has not been granted said promotion. The order reads as under: CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) BLOCK NO.13, CGO COMPLEX CISF UNIT, HPCL/BPCL POST BOX NO.18816, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI074 NO.E42099/CISF/HPBP/MISC/Ad.I/96/1398 Dated 06 June 96. To No.833280169, Const. P. Balu, CISF Unit, BPCL, Bombay-074. (Through Unit R.I.) SUB: Request for reconsideration of appeal for appointment from Constable to ASI/Clk in CISF : REGARDING Reference your application dated 31.05.96. 2. Your aforesaid application has been considered in this office and the following remarks have been made by the Commandant. "There is no merit. Since already got relaxation once. He cannot claim it as a matter of right again & again." 3. This is for your information. Sd/- (S.S. Thakur) Assistant Commandant/Adm. CISF Unit, HPCL/BPCL Bombay." 2. The above order is primarily challenged on the ground of discrimination that in the case of other similarly placed persons viz. in the case of L.R. Ramdas, R.S. Rawat, P. Armugam and D. Vasantakumari they have been given relaxation and have been appointed to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. 3. The order passed by the respondents has not given any plausible reason nor any rule has been indicated on account of which the petitioner has been denied the benefit of relaxation in his service career once the benefit has been given at the entry point. It is obvious that the person who was recruited as constable with a height of 167 cms. will obviously not grow in height after a given point of time and relaxation once given in physical standard must entitle the petitioner to receive further promotions if he was otherwise found fit. 4. It is obvious that the person who was recruited as constable with a height of 167 cms. will obviously not grow in height after a given point of time and relaxation once given in physical standard must entitle the petitioner to receive further promotions if he was otherwise found fit. 4. As to the plea of discrimination, we cannot consider its merit because no reply has been filed. Even the letter dated 6th June, 1996 does not address that grievance. That ought to have been considered by the Authority. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks from today by giving proper opportunity of hearing. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.