Per Mansoor, J. (Oral);— 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1541/2001, titled as, Sohan Singh v. State & others, whereby appellants-writ respondents 1 to 3 have been directed to relax the height of writ petitioner by half inch in order to make him eligible for being appointed against the post of Constable-cum-Driver in the Police Department (for short, impugned judgment). 2. Writ petitioner, respondent no. 1 herein, filed writ petition, SWP No. 1541/2001, seeking to quash Order No. 2279/2001 dated 02.07.2001, issued by the Director General of Police, J&K, Srinagar, with a direction to the respondents to relax his height on the analogy of respondent no. 4 therein for his appointment against the post of Constable-cum-Driver in the Police Department in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents for filing objections on 19.07.2001. When respondents failed to file objections, the writ petition came to be admitted on 13.02.2002 in presence of learned counsel appearing for the parties, and writ respondents were directed to file counter by or before 15.03.2002. Writ respondents failed to file counter right from 13.02.2002 till 18.11.2008, when writ petition came to be allowed vide the impugned judgment, with a direction to the respondents to relax the height of writ petitioner by half inch and consider him for appointment against the post of Constable-cum-Driver in the Police Department. 4. Aggrieved by the same, appellants-writ respondents 1 to 3 have filed the instant appeal on the ground that in terms of the applicable rules the height of petitioner cannot be relaxed. No other ground is urged in the memo of appeal. 5. Admittedly, writ petitioner had specifically averred in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that writ respondents 1 to 3 while appointing respondent no.4 therein, namely, Chain Lal, as Constable in the Police Department in terms of SRO 43, had relaxed his height by one inch, and so as the case of one Shokat Ali Khan. 6. As discussed hereinabove, the averments contained in the writ petition have remained un-rebutted. 7. In terms of Rule 7 of SRO 43, the Government has the power of relaxation. Appellants-writ respondents 1 to 3 have admitted that the case of petitioner was recommended for relaxation. It would he appropriate to reproduce paragraph-1 of the appeal herein. 6. As discussed hereinabove, the averments contained in the writ petition have remained un-rebutted. 7. In terms of Rule 7 of SRO 43, the Government has the power of relaxation. Appellants-writ respondents 1 to 3 have admitted that the case of petitioner was recommended for relaxation. It would he appropriate to reproduce paragraph-1 of the appeal herein. "The petitioner's father, a police personnel, died while in service. The petitioner applied for appointment as Constable/Driver in Police Department under SRO 43 of 1994. The case was processed, it was found that the petitioner was short by =" height and therefore, in eligible as per rules. The case was recommended for relaxation of physical standard as to the height." 8. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner has carved out a case. However, the Writ Court has fallen in error while commanding the appellants to relax the height of petitioner. 9. In view of the facts of the present case and in the light of the recommendations made by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jammu, we dispose of the appeal by providing the appellants-writ respondents 1 to 3 to consider the case of writ petitioner for relaxation of his height by half inch and to consider him for appointment against the post of Constable-cum-Driver in the Police Department in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, as recommended by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jammu, as per the rules applicable, within a period of two months from the date a copy of the order is served upon them. 10. Disposed of along with all connected CMPs.