S K CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226, Constitution of India for quashing the order dated July 31, 1987 (Annexure 1), allotting the three Government houses, newly constructed in the campus of Medical College, Jodhpur to the respondents No. 3 to 5 and for directing the respondent No. 2 to allot one of these houses to the petitioner. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE petitioner joined Medical College, Jodhpur as Senior Demonstrator in the Department of Pathology in December, 1975. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer and is continuing as such. THE Government constructed four houses of Type-Ill in the campus of Medical College, Jodhpur. THE petitioner, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and other doctors applied for allotment of these houses. THE respondent No. 3 Dr. (Mrs.) Kanta Motwani joined Medical College, Jodhpur in 1981 and the respondent No. 4 Dr. Rajeev Khullar and respondent No. 5 Dr. Sanjeev Sanghvi in the year 1986. THE Principal and Controller, Medical College, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2) was the Allotting Authority of these houses. He allotted them to the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and Dr. Dasora (not a party in the writ) by his order dated July 31, 1987 (Annexure l) which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the respondents No. 3 to 5 applied for the allotment of the Government houses prior to the petitioner, the rule regarding the order of the priority from the date of joining the duty at the place is applicable only when the applicant moves an application in the prescribed form immediately after joining the place and not otherwise, the petitioner applied for allotment for the first time in April, 1987, the rules never contemplated that he should get priority from 1975 and according to proviso given below rule 7 (c) (iii) priority is to be given from the date of the receipt of the application in such cases. He also contended that the provisions regarding the allotment of Government residential accommodation strictly in accordance with the waiting list is subject to various exceptions and conditions and are not mandatory in nature. He further contended that it is clear from the order of the Allotting Authority made on the report of the Committee that two Government houses were earmarked and remaining were left open for general allotment and it was not necessary to mention the fact of earmarking in the allotment order (Annexure 1 ).