ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering her case for appointment as Conductor or in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2, Transport, Roads & Buildings (TS.II) Department, dated 05.01.2013, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner by name Nenavath Srinivas, worked as a Driver in the respondent Corporation. He died on 16.02.2007 in harness. The petitioner made an application on 23.08.2007 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. The respondents orally informed the petitioner that her name was registered and as and when vacancy arises, her case will be considered. But, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, her claim was not considered. 4. On the other hand, the respondents appointed one Smt. Parvati, wife of a deceased employee and one Smt. D. Rajeswari, wife of a deceased employee as Cleaners in the respondent Corporation, though they have no requisite qualifications. But the case of the petitioner was not considered, which is discriminatory and arbitrary and sought to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 6. The case of the respondents is that the husband of the petitioner died on 16.02.2007 while he was working as Driver in the respondent Corporation. The petitioner being a wife of the deceased employee submitted an application on 29.07.2009 for providing employment i.e., Attender/ Conductor/Shramik under the bread winner scheme. Considering the request of the petitioner, she was called for an interview to the post of Conductor on 20.07.2013. The Selection Committee selected the petitioner to the post of Conductor subject to height relaxation from the competent authority. The said proposals for height relaxation by 3 cms., has not agreed by the competent authority. In view of the same, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Conductor is not considered. 7. The Selection Committee selected the petitioner to the post of Conductor subject to height relaxation from the competent authority. The said proposals for height relaxation by 3 cms., has not agreed by the competent authority. In view of the same, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Conductor is not considered. 7. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that in the respondent Corporation no recruitment took place to the post of Attenders. As such, considering the claim of the petitioner to the post of Attender does not arise. As per the terms of the Circular No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003, women candidates are not eligible for Shramik Post. In view of the instructions issued in the said Circular, the respondents are unable to provide employment to the petitioner. The same was also informed to the petitioner vide letter No.P3/684(1)/2013-RM/KR, dated 23.12.2013. As such, the learned Standing Counsel sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Upon perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, this Court noticed that women candidates are not eligible for Shramik Post in terms of Circular No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation to place the circular before this Court. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel filed a memo, dated 21.01.2021 enclosing the Circular No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003 issued by the Vice Chairman &n Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The said circular is extracted as hereunder: ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION No.R1/684(2)/1994-HRD Office of the Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. CIRCULAR NO.PD-37/2003, Dated 26.05.2003 SUB: RECRUITMENT – direct recruitment for the posts of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing) – Exemption from Women reservation for these posts – Approval of the Government – Notified. REF: (1) Cir.No.PD-79/1998, dated 04.09.1998. (2) Cir.No.PD-38/2001, dated 07.05.2001. (3) Govt.’s Lr.No.17525/Tr.III(2)/98-11, dated 06.02.2003 of TR & B Department. *** As per the Women reservation policy of the Govt. which is implemented vide Circular 1st cited, the vacancies under direct recruitment reserved for Women have to be carried forward to three successive recruitments as backlog in case of non-availability of suitable and qualified Women Candidates for the posts. However, in view of certain practical problems in implementing Women reservation, we had requested the Government to exempt Women reservation for the posts of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing). However, in view of certain practical problems in implementing Women reservation, we had requested the Government to exempt Women reservation for the posts of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing). The Special Chief Secretary to the Government, TR & B Department has now conveyed the exemption accorded by the Government from Women reservation in direct recruitments for the posts of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing), vide Government’s letter 3rd cited. In view of the exemption from Women reservation accorded by the Government vide Government’s letter 3rd cited, for the posts of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing), all the recruiting authorities are hereby instructed not to recruit Women candidates for these posts by direct recruitment. In the advertisements that may be issued for direct recruitment to these posts, it may be clearly mentioned that Women candidates are not eligible for these posts. These instructions shall come into force with immediate effect. This Circular supersedes the Circular 2nd cited. Sd/- R.P. Singh, VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR 9. It appears from the record that the petitioner lost her husband on 16.02.2007, who was working as Driver at that time and the petitioner seeking appointment under compassionate grounds for the post of Attender/Conductor/ Shramik under the bread winner scheme in the respondent Corporation. The respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner for the post of Attender stating that no recruitment took place to the post of Attender. The respondents rejected the request of the petitioner for the post of Conductor on the ground that the competent authority has not agreed for relaxation of height by 3 cms. The respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Shramik also in terms of the Circular No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003. 10. The Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased government employees in the year 1977 vide G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977. Certain instructions/clarifications/further orders were issued from time to time in the matter. A comprehensive note on the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the deceased government employees is consolidated vide Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003. The scheme was extended to State Level Public Undertakings. The scheme was dispensed with for some time in State Level Public Undertakings due to financial restrains and introduced the scheme of granting exgratia. The scheme was extended to State Level Public Undertakings. The scheme was dispensed with for some time in State Level Public Undertakings due to financial restrains and introduced the scheme of granting exgratia. The scheme of compassionate appointment was dispensed with in respondent Corporation in the year, 1998. 11. It appears on persuasion of the respondent Corporation, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, Transport, Roads & Buildings (TS.II) Department, dated 05.01.2013 permitting the Corporation to reintroduce the scheme of compassionate appointments with effect from 01.01.1998. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.15, Transport, Roads & Buildings (TS.II) Department, dated 07.02.2014 was issued clarifying that the scheme of compassionate appointments shall be in force for future claims also. It appears basing on the report submitted by the Committee of Officers constituted by the Vice Chairman & Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, comprehensive guidelines were issued vide Notification No.PD-2/2015, dated 10.02.2015 prescribed the eligibility qualifications for the respective posts and criteria for consideration of eligibility of claims of the dependents of the deceased employees. 12. The claims of the dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds was considered initially to the post of Driver Gr.II, Conductor Gr.II and Shramik (Cleaner to Khalasi) and later this scheme was extended to the post of RTC Constables. But, in view of the Circular No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003, the post of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing) are offered to male candidates only. 13. It is brought to the notice of this Court that it was averred in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation in Writ Petition No.15756 of 2014 that as there was ban on recruitment for the post of Shramiks and to adjust the excess staff in Sweepers and Attenders category, policy decision was taken to re-categorize Sweepers as Shramiks in the year, 2002 and it is further asserted that though these persons were designated as Shramiks, but they are being utilized as Sweepers only. From these averments, it is clear that the respondents are utilizing the services of the persons, who are appointed with designation as Shramik, their services are being utilizing as Cleaner to Khalasi and Sweepers. From these averments, it is clear that the respondents are utilizing the services of the persons, who are appointed with designation as Shramik, their services are being utilizing as Cleaner to Khalasi and Sweepers. In view of the same, as and when the petitioner is seeking any suitable post in the respondent Corporation under compassionate grounds, the action of the respondents not considering the claim of the petitioner to the post of Shramik, in the light of the Circular No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003, is illegal and unjust. 14. Living in the nation known for moving at a rapid pace towards gender equality, it is highly ironic that same nation’s instrumentalities like APSRTC, etc., through their highly discriminative rules and circulars, indifferently and explicitly are advocating gender bias. Being aware of the constitutional provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the authorities have been propagating such gender bias behind a veil-a VEIL that states girls and women are physically incapable of working under harsh conditions, which require muscle power and physical strength. 15. Everyone has to acknowledge the fact that women of this nation have proven themselves at every stratification of the society. We have women daily wage workers, who lift kilos of sand bags for a living and we also have women pilots, who carry an entire plane with their strength. To emphasis more, we have women Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Judges, Software employees, Wrestlers and Champions, who own us Medals at world tournaments. We have women everywhere we require strength. According to the scriptures of ancient India, a “WOMAN” is “SHAKTI”, which means strength, and today in the same India, we disregard the ‘SHAKTI’ our women possess. 16. Hence, the reason that women do not possess the physical strength to perform a task as a reason to deny compassionate appointment makes no sense. Also, harsh conditions as they have stated also include the working hours at which women or their families usually are not comfortable with. While the timings of work shifts are at the discretion of the employer and can be adjusted according to the needs, providing a comfortable workshift timings to women is not a herculean task to the concerned employers. 17. While the timings of work shifts are at the discretion of the employer and can be adjusted according to the needs, providing a comfortable workshift timings to women is not a herculean task to the concerned employers. 17. Under these circumstances and on careful consideration of the circular issued by the 1st respondent, it appears to be discriminatory on the ground of gender and as such, this Court has no any hesitation to hold that the said circular is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 18. The observation made in Smt. Bhuvaneswari V. Puranik vs. The State of Karnataka and others, 2021 (1) AKR 444 = 2021 (1) SCT 125 (Karnataka) by the High Court of Katnataka is thought provoking as it is extracted hereunder: “Half of the world; and not even half the chance” is the cry of the petitioner in this petition on being denied consideration for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father on the score that she is a married daughter”. 19. The cry of the petitioner in the case of Bhuvaneswari V. Puranik’s case (supra) is the same cry of the petitioner in the present case. 20. Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from denying any person equality before the law. Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits the discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. As such, no citizen shall be discriminated on the grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, or place of birth. The equality before law guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 is a constitutional right to every citizen. 21. In view of the above, this Court holds that the Circular issued by the 1st respondent vide No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003 is unconstitutional, as it is discriminating the women for entitlement of the posts of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing), as it is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. 21. In view of the above, this Court holds that the Circular issued by the 1st respondent vide No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003 is unconstitutional, as it is discriminating the women for entitlement of the posts of Shramik, Mechanic and Chargeman (Printing), as it is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. For the above mentioned reasons, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) The Circular No.PD-37/2003, dated 26.05.2003 is struck down, as it is violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) The impugned proceedings in letter No.P3/684(1)/2013-RM/KR, dated 23.12.2013 is hereby set aside; (iii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of Shramik or in any suitable post, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (iv) No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.