Housing allotment priority depends on operative-date eligibility; exclusion upheld where scheme changes and rational classification govern.

Priority under a housing allotment scheme must be tested against the eligibility conditions and the factual position on the operative date. Employees in category (iii) failed because they had voluntarily vacated the original quarters and, in some instances, were not in lawful possession when the relevant resolution was passed, so their claim to allotment under the hire purchase scheme was rejected. Employees in category (vi) were also validly excluded because the scheme had changed after the capital shift, the date fixed for priority had a rational nexus with the object of the revised allotment, and the exclusion did not infringe any vested right or constitutional guarantee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether employees in category (iii) were entitled to allotment of government quarters under the hire purchase scheme despite having vacated the Pahari houses and shifted to Gandhinagar accommodation. (ii) Whether exclusion of employees in category (vi) from the hire purchase allotment was illegal, arbitrary, or violative of constitutional guarantees and the housing board regulations.

Issue (i): Whether employees in category (iii) were entitled to allotment of government quarters under the hire purchase scheme despite having vacated the Pahari houses and shifted to Gandhinagar accommodation.

Analysis: The entitlement depended on possession and eligibility on the date of the relevant resolution. The record showed that the category (iii) employees had voluntarily vacated the original premises after being allotted better accommodation at Gandhinagar, and some were not even in lawful possession when the impugned resolution was passed. On those facts, the basis for claiming priority under the scheme was absent.

Conclusion: The exclusion of category (iii) employees was upheld and their claim to allotment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether exclusion of employees in category (vi) from the hire purchase allotment was illegal, arbitrary, or violative of constitutional guarantees and the housing board regulations.

Analysis: The allotment scheme had undergone a material change after the capital shifted and the houses were converted from rental to hire purchase allotment by later resolutions. The date fixed by the Government for determining priority had a rational connection with the object of the scheme and was not arbitrary. The Court also found it unnecessary to decide the abstract question of conflict between Sections 74 and 82 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961, because the allotment to government employees in the changed circumstances did not turn on that issue. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(e), and 21 also failed because the exclusion was treated as a permissible application of the scheme rather than an infringement of a vested right.

Conclusion: The exclusion of category (vi) employees was upheld and their claim to allotment failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenged exclusions were found to be valid, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A priority claim under a housing allotment scheme must be tested against the eligibility conditions and the factual position existing on the operative date, and a date fixed for allotment will not be arbitrary if it bears a rational nexus with the object of the scheme.

---