MADAN LAL SAINI Vs. MALVIYA REGIONAL ENGINEERING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working on the post of Issue Assistant in the library of Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur (for short, the College) and by virtue of his status he is entitled to allotment of a 'F' type quarter. Earlier, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Genitor which was a class IV post and was later on promoted as Library Attendant. Under order dated March 10, 1978 the petitioner was allotted a quarter No. H -36. The quarter H -36 is said to be a part of the Principal's bungalow and there is another quarter H -35 which is also a part of the said bungalow. Quarter No. H -35 was allotted to Nathu Singh, a class IV servant. The petitioner and the said Nathu Singh were occupying quarters Nos. H -36 and H -35 respectively since the date of allotment. An order dated April 9, 1986 was issued from the College under which the term of allotment of the quarter H -36 was extended upto June 30, 1986 and the petitioner was directed to make alternative arrangement for residential accommodation and vacate the aforesaid quarter by the aforesaid date positively. Annexure 6 is the aforesaid order and it was ordered there in that bungalow 'A' of which this quarter is a part, is to be occupied by the Principal and therefore, the date cannot be extended further. The petitioner filed a representation to the Chairman of the Board of Conveners of the College and requested that the allotment of the quarter has to be made on the basis of seniority, and if the aforesaid quarter is required to be vacated on the ground stated in the notice, then he should be allotted another H -type quarter on the basis of seniority.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order Annexure dated April 9, 1986. Notice was issued and reply has been filed. In the reply the case is that the allotment of the accommodation is a facility and does not confer a right on the petitioner. The allotment is made under the Rules Regarding the Allotment of Accommodation and the allotment is from year to year. The petitioner has no right to continue to occupy the allotted accommodation, and the writ petition should be dismissed.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I allow the writ petition and direct that the respondents that they will only ask the petitioner to vacate the quarter H -36 when they make him available the same type accommodation, if not better type to which the petitioner has now become eligible. The costs made easy.