B. RAM Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1989, Chandigarh Housing Board, (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent -Board') floated two different Self Financing Housing Schemes, one for the Government employees of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Administration, their Board/Corporation and Undertakings and for Defence Personnel (hereinafter referred to as 'the Government Employees' Scheme') and the other for General Public (hereinafter referred to as 'the General Public Scheme'). Both the schemes had four categories of residential flats, i.e., Category -I, II, III and IV. Under the Government Employees' Scheme, there were 48 flats available and under the General Public Scheme, 336 flats were available for allotment. The allotment was done by draw of lots. The petitioner, being a defence personnel, made an application dated 03.07.1989 (Annexure R -1) for allotment of a house/flat in Category -I under the Government Employees' Scheme as a Scheduled Caste applicant. On scrutinizing, the application was found in order and a list of eligible candidates (Annexure R -2) was displayed on the notice board. Name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 2 of that list. The respondent -Board then published a public notice in the newspaper 'The Tribune' dated 23.10.1989 fixing different dates for draw of lots for registration and allocation of floors to the applicants of different categories of flats under the Government Employees' Scheme. It was categorically stated in that public notice that list of eligible applicants would be displayed on the notice board in the premises of the office of the respondent -Board so as to enable the applicants to submit their objections, if any, in writing, on or before 31.10.1989. Draw of lots were scheduled to be held on 09.11.1989.

(2.) FOR allotment of flats in the category reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes applicants, only 18 applications were received and out of 48 flats available under the scheme, 06 flats, being 121/2% of the total flats, were reserved for such category. The petitioner presumably keeping in view his bleak chance of successful in the Government Employees' Scheme, in view of such number of reserved flats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category, made an application dated 26.10.1989 (Annexure P -1) requesting that his name be considered under the General Public category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. However, the request was declined and petitioner's application was included in the draw of lots under the Government Employees' Scheme for reserved category. The petitioner, however, was not successful in the draw of lots but his name was kept at serial No. 1 of the waiting list in view of draw of lots and available flats for allotment to the reserved category. The petitioner was to be offered a flat in the event of any flat in the reserved category was surrendered or allotment of any such flat was cancelled, in future.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has filed a written statement admitting the factual matrix as afore -stated but denying the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a flat in Category -I of the Government Employees' Scheme.