Government housing allotment discretion must stay within rules, with limits on discretionary allotments, retention, and dual occupancy.

Government accommodation allotment discretion must remain within the allotment rules and be exercised on reasons, relevant material and committee recommendation. A direction preventing creation of a second earmarked residence while the existing earmarked house remains occupied was treated as consistent with orderly administration. The Court also limited out-of-turn and discretionary allotments by applying a 10% ceiling and rejecting unfettered administrative power. It disapproved a pre-allotment objection process, but required publication of the final allotment list for transparency. It further affirmed that, absent a specific rule, one servant should not hold two houses, and found retention extensions beyond the prescribed period arbitrary.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the directions restraining creation of new earmarked accommodation until the existing earmarked house is vacated were consistent with the allotment rules; (ii) whether the blanket restriction on out-of-turn and discretionary allotments, and the related controls on the Administrator's powers, were sustainable; (iii) whether directions requiring publication of prospective allottees and inviting objections before allotment were justified; and (iv) whether the directions concerning allotment of two houses to one government servant, retention beyond the prescribed period, and the validity of the retention-extension provision were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the directions restraining creation of new earmarked accommodation until the existing earmarked house is vacated were consistent with the allotment rules.

Analysis: Earmarking of residences is recognised under the allotment regime, and the Court treated the challenged clarification as an attempt to prevent multiple houses being earmarked for the same post while an earlier earmarked house remained occupied. Such a direction was viewed as supportive of orderly administration and consistent with the scheme of the rules rather than as a departure from them.

Conclusion: The direction was upheld as being in conformity with the rules.

Issue (ii): whether the blanket restriction on out-of-turn and discretionary allotments, and the related controls on the Administrator's powers, were sustainable.

Analysis: The allotment regime permits limited discretion, but that discretion must be exercised on the basis of recommendation by the House Allotment Committee, supported by reasons and relevant job-related material. The Court held that Rule 11 could not support an unrestricted exercise of discretion and that the 10 per cent ceiling on out-of-turn allotments applied to the allotment regime as a whole. The Court also treated the Administrator's power under Rule 8 as a coordinating and controlling power, not a free-standing source of discretionary allotment outside the rules.

Conclusion: The absolute prohibition was not sustained, but the exercise of discretion was confined by the safeguards and ceiling stated by the Court.

Issue (iii): whether directions requiring publication of prospective allottees and inviting objections before allotment were justified.

Analysis: The Court found no rule requiring objections to be invited before every allotment and considered that such a requirement would delay the process and complicate implementation. The seniority safeguards already embedded in the rules were treated as sufficient protection. However, transparency was preserved by directing publication of the final allotment list on the website.

Conclusion: The direction to invite objections was set aside, while publication of the final allotment list was directed.

Issue (iv): whether the directions concerning allotment of two houses to one government servant, retention beyond the prescribed period, and the validity of the retention-extension provision were sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that, absent a specific rule, one government servant should not be allotted two different houses, and that exceptional invocation of the relevant provision should be sparing. On retention, the Court found the extension provision to be unguided and arbitrary because the basic rules already provided sufficient retention periods and the extended retention would unfairly deprive others awaiting allotment. The Court also granted the appellant interim substantive relief by directing allotment of alternate accommodation of the entitled category, or equivalent accommodation if such allotment was unavailable.

Conclusion: The prohibition against dual allotment was affirmed in principle, retention beyond the prescribed period was disallowed, and the appellant was granted alternate accommodation relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by partly sustaining the High Court's regulatory directions, partly modifying them, and granting the appellant interim accommodation relief while leaving her substantive eviction dispute to be decided separately in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative discretion in government accommodation allotment must remain confined to the statutory rules, supported by reasons and relevant material, and any unguided or excessive discretion that produces arbitrariness is liable to be curtailed by judicial directions consistent with the rule framework.

---