At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK
By, MEMBER (J)
For the Applicant: Barjesh Mittal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Vikrant Sharma, Advocate.
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J).
1. The applicant is Nursing Sister Grade-I and w.e.f. January, 2012, she has been officiating as Assistant Nursing Superintendent in Emergency Ward-II of the respondent Post Institute of Medical Education Institute of Medical Education and Research (fort short Institute). As per her seniority and eligibility the applicant was allotted House No. T-IV/28 (Top Floor), Sector 12, Chandigarh vide order dated 24.10.2006, which remains in her possession till date.
2. As per the terms and conditions of House Allotment Rules, an allottee is entitled to give his/her option for change of house from Upper Floors to Ground Floors of the same type. Under these rules, the applicant in 2011, applied for change of house to T-IV (GF). At that time House No. 33 (GF) of type-IV fell vacant which was allotted to Smt. Roseline Naik who is junior to the applicant. As per practice options are called every year for change of houses. In response to such process, the applicant submitted her option in 2012 (thrice), for change of same type on Ground Floor., She also met the respondent no. 4. However, the respondents issued order dated 30.05.2012 vide which applicant was allotted House No. 15 on First Floor. She protested against this as she had applied for allotment only on ground floor. She claims that it was intentionally done so that her refusal may be taken as an estoppels/ground not to give her any change in future. Now respondents have issued order dated 27.5.2013 which contains list of applicants desirous of change and obviously name of applicant does not find a mention on the premise of her alleged refusal and juniors who her who were allotted house only in 2010 and 2012 have been included for a change. Had her name been kept in list, she would have been at Sr No.1.
3. The applicant has now filed the instant O.A. to quash the order dated 30.5.2012 (A-1) to the extent applicant has been debarred for change of house permanently and for issuance of direction to the respondents to include her name in order dated 27.5.2013 at Sr. No. 1 and allot her change to House No. 34 (GF) of same type.
4. The applicant filed an M.A.No.1335/2013 for issuance of direction to the respondents to accept her option for change to House No. 34 (GF) being senior most. Ultimately, she was informed vide letter dated 27.9.2013 that her request has been accepted and her name shall be reconsidered by the House Allotment Committee.
5. The case was listed for issuance of notice on 31.5.2013 when while issuing notice of motion, as an interim measure, it was directed that the allotment of one ground floor house of this category (type-IV) may be retained in abeyance till the next date of hearing. Sh. Deepak Agnihotri had accepted on behalf of the respondents and sought time to have instructions / file pleadings. However, Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate, appeared for respondents on 25.7.2013. However, the respondents have not filed any reply till date and as such their right to file reply is forfeited.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on the file.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in so far as grievance of applicant qua inclusion of her name in the list of persons eligible for change of house is concerned, the same stands redressed by the respondents themselves. His subsisting grievance and rather apprehension is that when the applications were initially called by the respondents, the applicant was bound to find place at Sr. No.1. However, due to lapse of time and if applications of persons who became eligible subsequently or submitted their applications later on should not be included in the consideration zone as they are likely to steal a march over the applicant.
8. The above proposition was countered by learned counsel for the respondents, who placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Kumari Vs. Union of India etc. 1995 (1) SCT page 527 (relating to allotment of seats in Degree Course) to argue that all eligible persons as per their seniority have to be considered and the applicant cannot claim their exclusion. In that case it was held that the allotment of seats should go according to merit. It does not depend upon who comes to Court and who does not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the Court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means to approach the court. Similarly, in Chandigarh Administration vs. Manpreet Singh, 1992(2) SCT 68, it was held that benefit is to be given as per priority.
9. It is not in dispute that the controversy now revolves around proposed allotment of House No. 34 (Ground Floor) to the eligible applicants. The applicants claims that she is the senior most and was to be kept at Sr. No.1 and that consideration has to be restricted to the date when initially names of two applicants were included in eligible list. The applicant in her wisdom has not chosen to implead those two persons nor any other person who is likely to find a place on invitation of applications subsequently. The Hon'ble Apex Court in such likes cases where third party interests are involved has held that they are necessary parties in absence of impleadment thereof O.A has to be dismissed. Reference in this regard is made to Prabodh Verma and others, etc., etc. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, etc. [AIR 1985 SC 167].
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced copy of letter dated 3.10.2013 addressed by Institute to Law Officer of Institute with reference to M.A.No. 1335/2013 that House No. 34 (GF) has not yet been vacated and as such its possession has not been given to allottee i.e. Ms. Agnes F. Masih. Now the said House shall be allotted aga
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
in on the basis of revised list on the basis of seniority and priorities of the candidates and the applicant shall be considered for allotment of House No. 34 (GF) and 40 (GF) on vacation in accordance with the seniority. The Court does not find any flaw with the proposed action sought to be taken by respondents which is in accordance with the principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Kumari (supra) and Manpreet Singh (supra) that seats have to be allotted as per priority. 11. In view of the above discussion, this O.A. shall stand dismissed, but with the observations made above. No costs.