ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJ & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for not allotting the residential accommodation to the petitioner in accordance with the rules for allotment of residential accommodation to the employees of the University of Rajasthan. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment which has been made in Rule 18 cannot be considered retrospective in nature so as to affect the rights of those persons who are already in que and list has been prepared in accordance with Rule 5 and 8. It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled for accommodation in 'R' category and he was at Sr. No. 23 in 1989. All the persons who were upto Sr. No. 22 in the said list have been provided the accommodation till May 1991 and the petitioner was thus at the top to whom the houses could have been allotted as a candidate at Sr. No. 1. It is also submitted that the house which was occupied by Shri H.G. Pant was lying vacant and locked and was not given to the petitioner at the relevant time. It is also submitted that Rule 5 has not been amended after the amendment being made in Rule 18 and therefore, the effect cannot be given. The action of the respondents is said to be arbitrary and discriminatory and even the representations which have been submitted by the petitioner have not been considered and disposed of.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that allotment of a house is not a matter of right to any person as has been provided in Rule 11 of the said rules and the relevant and effective date for consideration is the date of allotment and not the date of preparation of the list. The list is only an indicative guideline on the basis of which it is being prepared and because some injustice was being done to the categories of those persons who fall under Rule 18, the requirement of submission of application was dispensed with.

(3.) I have considered over the matter. The rules are meant for procedure and the date on which the allotment is to be made has to be taken as the relevant date for following the said procedure. In the matter of allotment of house, this will be the position. No doubt by change in Rule 18, the petitioner has been deprived of the allotment which he would have been entitled in accordance with the list prepared earlier. But it may be for the reason that injustice which was done to the others has been remedied by amending the rules. In any case, since the Rule 11 itself provides that allotment of house will not be considered to be a right of any person, therefore, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure provided under the rules and the amended rule has to be made applicable from the date of amendment has been made.