MRS. ASHA SHARMAversusCHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

                [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 881


                   MRS. ASHA SHARMA                             A
                              v.
        CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 7524 of 2011)
                     AUGUST 30, 2011
                                                                B
  [OR: 8.5. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)

   Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration
General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996:
                                                                c
      r. 13 - Allotment of accommodation - Appellant, an !AS
 Officer was allotted government accommodation in
 Chandigarh - She retired from service and was r.equired to
 vacate the premises by 31st December, 2008 - On 31st
 December, 2008, she was appointed as the State Information D
 Commissioner - She requested to the authorities for
 allotment of the government accommodation already in her
 occupation, but her request was not accepted - Estate Officer
 passed an eviction order against the appellant which was
 upheld by the appellate authority - Writ petition - The Single E
Judge of the High Court directed that as soon as a'ny alternate
 accommodation is allotted to appellant, as per her entitlement
 under the Rules, she shall, within two weeks of such allotment,
 vacate the house presently under her occupation - However,
the Division Bench stayed the directions of the Single Judge F
and directed the matter to be heard by a larger Bench - On
appeal, held: No new house for any category/post should be
earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such
category/post has been vacated and placed in the general
pool of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment in
accordance with the Allotment Rules - No case of retention G
of government accommodation beyond the periods specified
in the table to r. 13(2) of the Allotment Rules shall be
entertained by any authority under the Allotment Rules - An
order of eviction and damages was passed against the
                               881                               H
    882    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A appellant - The matter in that behalf is still pending final
  hearing before the Single Judge - The parties are left to raise
  all their contentions before the Single Judge, who shall decide
  the matter in accordance with law - However, with regard to
  the interim· order passed by the High Court, the State is
B directed to allot to her an alternative accommodation under
  the category as per her entitlement, in pursuance of her
  appointment as State Information Commissioner, within fifteen
  days and she shall be liable to vacate the accommodation
  presently in her occupation within two weeks thereafter- In the
c event the Government is unable to allot her an alternative
  accommodation of her category for the reason of non-
  availability of such accommodation, she should be provided
  with appropriate accommodation, including private
  accommodation of he_r status, within the same period.
D         r. 7 - Earmarking of houses - Held: r. 7 provides for
    earmarking of houses for specified officers from different
    branches of the State Administration and those houses which
    have not been so earmarked for any particular class of
    Government employees would be allotted to the general pool
E   of the Chandigarh Administration - This Rule and its sub-
    Rules read together do not suffer from the vice of
    arbitrariness, as earmarking of houses is a known concept in
    relation to allotment of houses - In the instant case, the Single
    Judge of the High Court gave a clarificatory direction that when
F   earmarked houses are occupied by an officer, who is at that
    time not entitled to that house, another house would not be
    earmarked for any particular officer, until the occupied house
    is vacated - One exception was carved out in favour of SSP,
    Chandigarh - This clarificatory direction is not violative of any
G   rule or is otherwise impermissible - These directions
    attempted to ensure that there should not be more than one
    earmarked house for the same post as per the need - This
    would also ensure timely vacation of the earmarked houses
    by the officers concerned, upon their transfer, promotion or
H   posting to a post where they are not entitled to an earmarked
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION                       883
                 AND ORS.

accommodation - There is no reason to interfere with                   A
imposition of such a condition which is in conformity with the
spirit of the said Rule.

     r. 11 - Out-of-Turn Allotments - Held: s. 11 deals with Out-
of-Turn Allotments, i.e. the House Allotment Committee may
                                                                       B
allot a house on Out-of- Turn basis to the cases specified
under clauses (a) to (g) of that Rule - r. 11 is a very
comprehensive rule which deals with the specific situations
where Out-of-Turn Allotment is permissible - The Allotment
Rules and the guidelines are intended to control the exercise
of discretion by the authorities concerned in granting Out-of-         C
Tum Allotments - In the instant case, the absolute restriction
on Out-of- Tum Allotments imposed by the Single Judge of
the High Court was not just and fair and was opposed to the
statutory provisions of the Allotment Rules - Therefore, such
a restriction is not sustainable.                                      D

      r. 8 - Interpretation of - Held: The purpose of r. 8 is not to
allow discretionary allotment but is to provide overall powers
of coordination and control to the Administrator, U. T.,
Chandigarh - The words 'for the purposes of allotment to any           E
class or category of eligible government servant' appearing
in r. 8 mean the allotment made in terms of the Allotment
Rules - Adding or withdrawing houses to the general pool is
a power vested in the authority under r. 8, but allotments still
are to be made in accordance with the substantive rules                F
enabling the authorities to make regular allotments.

     r. 9 - Objections regarding allotment of accommodation
- Held: r. 9 requires the authorities to invite applications for
allotment of accommodation and also provides the manner
in which the allotment of houses is to be made including               G
showing the seniority of the applicants category-wise - There
is no provision requiring invitation of objections - Once there
is no rule, it will not serve any fruitful purpose to invite
objections to each allotment apart from unnecessarily
delaying allotments and rendering the working of the Rules             H
    884   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A more complex and difficult - Further, r.9(5) of the Allotment
  Rules is a complete safeguard in regard to proper
  maintenance of the seniority list of the applicants - The
  directions issued by the Single Judge regarding invitation of
  objections from aggrieved officers who might assert
B preferential claim is set aside.

       r. 11 - Issues regarding the allotment of two houses to a
  single officer and/or to his family, one in Chandigarh and one
  in some other part of the same State; and the period of
C retention of the allotted house after the employee is retired,
  promoted, transferred or is sent on deputation - Held: -The
  said issue is of serious concern - There is no rule providing
  that an officer who is posted outside Chandigarh!Panchkulal
  Mohali and whose spouse is not entitled to any Government
  accommodation of any category can be provided with two
D houses, one at the District/Division level to which he/she is
  transferred and another at Chandigarh and its adjourning
  areas - In absence of any such specific rule, it is directed that
  the State shall not allot two different houses to one government
  servant - In terms of r.11(1)(b) of the Allotment Rules, such
E allotment can be made in some circumstances but every effort
  should be made to ensure that such situations arise only in
  exceptional circumstances.

         r. 13 - Retention of government accommodation - Held:
F   A government servant cannot be permitted to retain the
    accommodation beyond 4 to 6 months, which period is
    permissible under the substantive rules - A government
    servant knows in advance the period within which he has to
    vacate the accommodation allotted to him as part of his
G   employment and so he has to surrender the house in
    question within the scheduled time - rr.13(1) and 13(2) are
    comprehensive, specific and provide more than reasonable
    time for a government servant to vacate the accommodation
    a/lott~d to him/her - Court cannot Jose sight of the fact that a
    large number of employees under different categories are
H   awaiting their allotments and are being deprived of this benefit
  ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 885
                  AND ORS.

for long periods because of excessive invocation of such           A
discretionary powers - The provision is unguided and arbitrary
and cannot stand the scrutiny of law - More so, the licence
fee indicated is obviously minimal in comparison to the
market rent for the said premises - It is a matter which a Court
can safely take judicial notice of - Compelled by these            B
circumstances, r. 13(5) is not sustainable and the authorities
are directed not to take recourse to the said provision under
any circumstance - No case of retention of government
accommodation beyond the periods specified in the table to
r. 13(2) shall be entertained by any authority under the           c
Allotment Rules - The directions are passed being conscious
of the fact that the Allotment Rules are in place and that the
authorities are acting fairly and judiciously.

      Allotment of accommodation - Duty of authorities - Held:
 The authorities are expected to be consistent in their decisions D
 and bring certainty to the Allotment Rules - This can only be
 done by making fair, judicious and reasoned decisions on the
 one hand and refraining from amending the Allotment Rules
 except in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances on the
 other - The Doctrine of Certainty can appropriately be applied E
 to legislative powers as it is applicable to judicial
pronouncements - This would not mean that the power of the
Legislature to amend rules is restricted by judicial
pronouncements - But it is impressed upon the Legislature
that the rules of the present kind should not be amended so F
frequently that no established practice or settled impression
may be formed in the minds of the employees - Where the
employer has limited resources, there the employee has a
legitimate expectation of being dealt with fairly in relation to
allotment to such government accommodation.                       G

    Administrative law:

    Decision making process - Arbitrariness in - Held:
Whenever both the decision making process and the decision
taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant       H
    886   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A considerations, such an action can normally be termed as
  'arbitrary' - Where the process of decision making is followed
  but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a
  conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of
  arbitrariness - Of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the
B reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration within
  the scope of judicial review - Rationality, reasonableness,
  objectivity, application of mind and transparency are some of
  the pre-requisites of proper decision making.

C       Policy decisions - Judicial 1eview - Scope of- Held: The
  Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and
  policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under
  the prevalent peculiar circumstances - The Court may not
  strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely
  because it feels that another decision would have been more
D fair or wise, scientific or logical - Even if no rules are in force
  to govern executive action, still such action, especially if it
  could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just,
  fair and transparent - Allotment of Government
  accommodation is one of the statutory benefits which a
E Government servant is entitled to under the Allotment Rules
  and, therefore, fair implementation of these Rules is a sine
  qua non to fair exercise of authority and betterment. of the
  employee-employer relationship bf!tween the Government
  servant and the Government - Government Residences
F (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules,
  1996.

        State action - Scope of judicial review of such actions -
  Held: Court has power, depending on the facts and
G circumstances of a given case, to issue appropriate directions
  in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
  of India (by the High Court) and under Article 32 read with
  Article 141. of the Constitution of India (by the Supreme Court)
  - The Supreme Court in the process of interpreting the law
H can remove any lacunae and fill up the gaps by laying down
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 887
                 AND ORS.
the directions with reference to the dispute before it; but A
normally it cannot declare a new law to be of general
application in the same manner as the Legislature may do -
The courts can issue directions with regard to the dispute in
a particular case, but should be very reluctant to issue
directions which are legislative in nature - Because of the new B
dimensions which constitutional law has come to include, it
becomes imperative for the courts in some cases, to pass
directions to ensure that statutory or executive authorities do
not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily or contrary to the settled
laws.                                                            c
     Administrative Jurisprudence - Held: It is a settled canon
of Administrative Jurisprudence that wider the power
conferred, more onerous is the responsibility to ensure that
such power is not exercised in excess of what is required or
relevant for the case and the decision.                         D

     CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Articles 32 and 226
- Held: Confer on the Supreme Court and the High Court the
power to issue directions, orders or writs for achieving the
 objectives of those Articles - In public interest, the courts may   E
pass directions and even appoint committees for inducing the
 Government to carry out the constitutional mandate - The
courts have been taking due care while exercising such
jurisdiction so that they do not overstep the circumscribed
judicial limits.                                                     F

     The appellant was an IAS Officer and was allotted
government accommodation in Chandigarh. She retired
from service on 28th February, 2007. As per the
Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration
General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 which has been                   G
amended from time to time, she was entitled to retain the
Government accommodation, previously allotted to her
while she was in service, for a period of four months with
further possible extension upto six months, in terms of
Rule 13 of the Allotment Rules. This extension could be              H
   888   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A granted only in exceptional cases. Thus, she was
  required to vacate the residential premises allotted to her
  by 31st December, 2008. On 31st December, 2008, the
  appellant was C!PPOinted as the State Information
  Commissioner. As per the terms of appointment, she was
B entitled to Government accommodation and salary/
  allowances of the same type and amount as were given
  to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana. She
  applied to the authorities concerned requesting for
  allotment of the government accommodation already in
c her occupation, but her request was not accepted. On
  16th April, 2008, the Estate Officer passed an eviction
  order against the appellant. The appellate authority
  upheld the order. The appellant filed a writ petition before
  the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court
0 passed certain general directions in relation to the
  procedure for allotment of Government houses, their
  retention and various other aspects relating thereto. The
  Single Judge directed that as soon as any alternate
  accommodation is allotted to the appellant, as per her
  entitlement under the Rules, she shall, within two weeks
E
  of such allotment, vacate the house presently under her
  occupation. It was further directed that no allotment
  should be made in exercise of the discretionary powers
  of the Administrator, UT., or Chief Ministers of Punjab and
  Haryana; that no house should be allotted 'out of turn'
F without prior permission of the Court; that no house
  should be 'earmarked' for any particular office/officer till
  the earlier 'earmarked' house which were subsequently
  'de-earmarked' and allowed to be retained by the officers,
  who were not entitled to such allotment as their seniors
G in terms of pay, rank or status were still awaiting
  allotment of that Type or above houses, are got vacated
  except in the case of the SSP, Chandigarh in relation to
  whom one time concession has been granted by order
  dated 07 .03.2011; that a list of the 'prospective allottees'
H should be prepared and displayed on the websites of the
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 889
                 AND ORS.
Chandigarh Administration two weeks in advance inviting       A
objections, if any, from the aggrieved officers/officials
who might ·assert their preferential claim and only after
considering/deciding their objections, the allotment
letters should be issued; that no further 'addition' of the
houses should be made to the discretionary quota of the       B
Chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana nor the
possession of the vacant houses exceeding the said
quota should be given to the allottees. On appeal, the
Division Bench stayed the directions of the Single Judge
and directed the matter to be heard by a larger Bench.        c
The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the
Division Bench of the High Court.

    Disposing of the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. The allotment of government D
 accommodation is governed by the statutory regime and
 the Allotment Rules are concerned with various facets of
 this concept. The Government Residences (Chandigarh
Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 cover
concepts such as allotment, vacation, cancellation and E
preferential allotments of government accommodations.
Despite the fact that the Allotment Rules are in force their
proper implementation still remains an elusive
endeavour. The grievance of the officers/officials has still
persisted with regard to the manner in which the F
discretion under the Rules were being exercised. In other
words, the element of discretion vested under these rules
has caused serious dissatisfacti~n with the
implementation of these Allotment Rules. [para 8] [905-H;
906-A-C]
                                                              G
    1.2. Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated
by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both
the decision making process and the decision taken are
based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant
considerations, such an action can normally be termed H
    890    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A as 'arbitrary'. Where the process of decision making is
  followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving
  at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category
  of arbitrariness. Of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the
  reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration
B within the scope of judicial review. Rationality,
  reasonableness, objectivity, application of mind and
  transparency are some of the pre-requisites of proper
  decision making. [para 9] [906-D-E]

C        1.3. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic
   adjustments and policy decisions, which may be
   necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar
   circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy
   decision taken by the Government merely because it
   feels that another decision would have been more fair or
D wise, scientific or logical. The principle of reasonableness
   and non-arbitrariness in governmental action is the core
   of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its
   interpretation will always depend upon the facts and
   circumstances of a given case. Action by the State,
E whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in
   consonance with the statutory provisions and rules.
   Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action
  ·still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the
   rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent.
F The standard of fairness is also dependant upon
   certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons,
   subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able
   to reasonably anticipate the order for the action that the
   State is likely to take in a given situation. The Allotment
G Rules have been framed with the approval of this Court
   and thereafter have been amended by the State
   Government with the intention to give some clarity and
   certainty to the implementation of the Allotment Rules,
   rather than subjecting it to further challenge on the
H ground of arbitrariness or discrimination. A Government
  ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 891
                  AND ORS.
servant has a reasonable expectation of being dealt with A
justly and fairly in receiving rights that are granted to him/
her under the Allotment Rules. Allotment of Government
accommodation is one of the statutory benefits which a
Government servant is entitled to under the Allotment
Rules and, therefore, fair implementation of these Rules B
is a sine qua non to fair exercise of authority and
betterment of the employee-employer relationship
between the Government servant and the Government.
[Paras 10, 11] [906-G-H; 907-B-H]

   Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal (2000) 8 SCC 262; C
Ramana Dayaram Sheffy v. International Airport Authority of
India (1979) 3 SCC 489: 1979 (3) SCR 1014 - relied on.

      1.4. Another settled principle of law, applicable to the
  instant case, is the scope of judicial review of such D
 actions, which is usually quite limited. The Court has the
 power, depending on the facts and circumstances of a
 given case, to issue appropriate directions in exercise of
 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
 (by the High Court) and under Article 32 read with Article · E
 141 of the Constitution of India (by this C9urt). It is a
settled canon of Constitutional Jurisprudence that this
Court in the process of interpreting the law can remove
any lacunae and fill up the gaps by laying down the
directions with reference to the dispute before it; but F
normally it cannot declare a new law to be of general
application in the same manner as the Legislature may
do. The courts can issue directions with regard to the
dispute in a particular case, but should be very reluctant
to issue directions which are legislative in nature. Be that G
as it may, because of the new dimensions which
constitutional law has come to include, it becomes
imperative for the courts in some cases, to pass directions
to ensure that statutory or executive authorities do not
act arbitrarily, discriminatorily or contrary to the settled H
    892    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A laws. It was in light of these principles that this Court, vide
  its judgment dated 7th May, 1996 set aside the Full Bench
  Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
  brought into force some appropriate rules and sought to
  ensure that the competent authority acted in accordance
B with law and that it avoided total arbitrariness in allocation
  of government houses to its officers and employees.
  Once those rules came into force and were ameoded
  from time to time as per the leave granted by this Court,
  it was not proper exercise of judicial discretion and
c jurisdiction to pass directions, which were in direct
  conflict with the Allotment Rules which were approved by
  this Court or with the directions which were issued by this
  Court on earlier occasions. [Paras 13, 15, 16] [908-C-D;
  910-F-G; 911-A-E]
D         P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka (2002) 4 SCC
    578 - Followed.

      E.S.P. Rajaram and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
  (2001) 1 SCR 203; Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskar & Ors.
E (1996) 4 SCC 416: 1996(2) Suppl. SCR 358; Guruvayoor
  Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7
  SCC 546: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 619; Reliance Airport
  Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India and Ors.;
  (2006) 10 sec 1: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 398; Chandigarh
F Administration v. Manpreet Singh (1992) 1 SCC 380; P.
  Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
    - relied on.
      2. Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution confer on
  the Court and the High Court the power to issue
G directions, orders or writs for achieving the objectives of
  those Articles. The courts, in the past, have issued
  directions for various purposes. In public interest, the
  courts may pass directions and even appoint committees
  for ·inducing the Government to carry out the
H
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 893
                 AND ORS.

constitutional mandate. The courts have been taking due A
care while exercising such jurisdiction so that they do
not overstep the circumscribed judicial limits. The
Allotment rules were subjected to different amendments
from time to time and major amendments were carried out
in the years 1997, 1998, 2004, 2007 and 2009. Besides B
these, certain guidelines were also framed which became
part of the Allotment Rules. These amendments related
to changes in the definition clauses as well as the
substantive rules. This Court had granted leave by its
judgment dated 7th May, 1996 to the Chandigarh c
Administration to amend the rules, as and when. it
considered such amendment necessary. The leave
granted by this Court obviously meant that the
amendment should be necessity based and not be
intended to introduce the element of arbitrariness or D
discrimination in the rules and resultantly in the allotment
of the houses to the government officers/ officials. [paras
17, 20] [911-G-H; 912-A; 913-H; 914-A-D]

     3.1. Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules, which deals with
the creation of pools of residences, provides for E
earmarking of houses for specified officers from different
branches of the State Administration and those houses
which have not been so earmarked for any particular
class of Government employees would be allotted to the
general pool of the Chandigarh Administration. This Rule F
and its sub-Rules read together do not suffer from the
vice of arbitrariness, as earmarking of houses is a known
concept in relation to allotment of houses. The Single
Judge of the High Court has given a clarificatory direction
that when earmarked houses are occupied by an officer, G
who is at that time not entitled to that house, another
house would not be earmarked for any particular officer,
until the occupied house is vacated. One exception is
carved out in favour of SSP, Chandigarh in terms of order
dated 7th March, 2011. This clarificatory direction is not H
     894   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A violative of any rule or is otherwise impermissible. These
  directions attempted to ensure that there should not be
  more than one earmarked house for the same post as per
  the need. This clarification or explanatory direction would
  also ensure timely vacation of the earmarked houses by
B the officers concerned, upon their transfer, promotion or
  posting to a post where they are not entitled to an
  earmarked accommodation. Thus, there is no reason to
  interfere with imposition of such a condition which is in
  conformity with the spirit of the said Rule. It is directed
c that no new house for any category/post should be
  earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such
  category/post has been vacated and placed in the
  general pool of the Chandigarh Administration for
  allotment in accordance with the Allotment Rules. [para
D 23] (915-F-H; 916-A-D]

          3.2. There is no specific rule controlling the
     discretionary allotment by the Administrator, U.T.,
     Chandigarh and the Chief Minister of State of Punjab and
     Haryana respectively. However, Rule 8 identifies the
E    Controlling Authority which is the Administrator, U.T.
     Chandigarh, who would be the co-ordinating and
     controlling authority in respect of the houses belonging
     to Chandigarh Administration. He has been given the
     power to add or withdraw houses from any pool for the
F    purposes of allotment to any class or category of eligible
     government employees and may also change the
     classification of houses on the recommendation of the
     House Allotment Committee. Rule 11 deals with Out-of-
     Turn Allotments, i.e. the House Allotment Committee may
G    allot a house on Out-of-Turn basis to the cases specified
     under clauses (a) to (g) of that Rule. The House Allotment
     Committee in its Meeting dated 27th March, 2003 has
     further approved certain guidelines for the Out-of-Turn
     Allotments. Rule 11 is a very comprehensive rule which
H!   deals with the specific situations where Out-of-Turn
  ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 895
                  AND ORS.
  Allotment is permissible. The Allotment Rules and these A
  guidelines are intended to control the exercise of
  discretion by the authorities concerned in granting out-
  of-turn allotments. There is some vagueness in Rule
  11(1)(e), i.e. Out-of-Turn Allotments to a government
  employee due to the 'functional requirements' of the post. B
  This expression is neither explained nor have any
  guidelines been issued in this regard. The criteria
  provided in Guideline (2) for allotments made in public
  interest under Rule 11 (1 )(f) is quite similar to the criteria
  for determining functional requirements. Both these c
  heads refer to the nature of official duties and functions
  to be performed by the officer concerned. Thus, the
  category of 'functional requirement' allotment is nothing
  but a category created to allow more and more allotments
  under this head. In light of these rules, the absolute D
  restriction on Out-of-Turn Allotments imposed by the
  Single Judge may not be just and fair and will be
  opposed to the statutory provisions of the Allotment
  Rules. Therefore, such a restriction is not sustainable.
  However, the powers vested in the concerned authority E
  under Rules 8 and 11 of the Allotment Rules will only be
·exercised: (a) upon recommendation of the House
 Allotment Committee; (b) such recommendation should
 be supported by reasons with the requirements of the job
 and the data in support thereof; and (c) no allotments
 would be made under the provisions of Rule 11(1)(e). The F
 maximum restriction of 10 per cent of all allotments being
 Out.,of-Turn Allotments, as contemplated under Rule 11(2)
 of the Allotment Rules, shall be operative to entire Rule
 11 as well as to Rule 8 of the Allotment Rules. In no event
 shall Out-of-Turn Allotment exceed 10 per cent of all G
 houses allotted in a year. This is primarily to control the
 exercise of discretionary power as well as to ensure that
 the persons entitled to residential accommodation in the
 general pool are not made to wait unduly for an indefinite
 period. [paras 24, 25] [916-D-H; 917-A-H; 918-A]                 H
    896   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      3.3. Allotments under different categories and with
  the restrictions as stated in the Allotment Rules and the
  guidelines shall continue to be in force and should not
  be amended or altered except in exceptional
  circumstances by the appropriate body. This alone can
B add some certainty to the application of these provisions
  and to the expectations of the government employees,
  who have a legitimate expectation of allotment of
  government accommodation as part of their perks. It is
  also directed that the purpose of Rule 8 of the Allotment
c Rules is not to allow discretionary allotment but is to
  provide overall powers of coordination and control to the
  Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh. When the words 'for the
  purposes of allotment to any class or category of eligible
  government servant' appearing in Rule 8 are examined,
0 these have to necessarily be construed to mean the
  allotment made in terms of the Allotment Rules. Adding
  or withdrawing. houses to the general pool is a power
  vested in the authority under Rule 8, but allotments still
  are to be made in accordance with the substantive rules
E enabling the authorities to make regular allotments.
  [paras 26-27} [918-B-E]

      3.4. Rule 9 of the Allotment Rules requires the
  authorities to invite applications for allotment of
  accommodation and also provides the manner in vyhich
F the allotment of houses is to be made including showing
  the seniority of the applicants category-wise. There is no
  provision requiring invitation of objections. Once there is
  no rule, it will not serve any fruitful purpose to invite
  objections to each allotment apart from unnecessarily
G delaying allotments and rendering the working of the
  Rules more complex and difficult. Further, Rule 9(5) of the
  Allotment Rules is a complete safeguard in regard to
  proper maintenance of the seniority list of the applicants.
  Thus, the directions issued by the Single Judge in that
H behalf is set aside. However, it is directed that the final
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 897
                 AND ORS.

list of allotments made by the House Allotment Committee     A
should be placed on the website of the Government, as
all interested persons would be entitled to know whether
they have been allotted the accommodation or not. [para
28] [918-G-H; 919-A-B]
                                                              B
      3.5. The issue regarding the allotment of two houses
 to a single officer and/or to his family, one in Chandigarh
 and one in some other part of the same State; and the
 second w;;is regarding the period of retention of the
 allotted house after the employee is retired, promoted, C
 transferred or is sent on deputation are of serious
concern. There is no rule on the records providing that
an officer who is posted outside Chandigarh/Panchkula/
Mohali and whose spouse is not entitled to any
Government accommodation of any category can be'
provided with two houses, one at the District/Division D
level to which he/she is transferred and another at
Chandigarh and its adjourning areas. In absence of any
such specific rule, it is directed that the State shall not
allot two different houses to one government servant. In
terms of Rule 11 (1 )(b) of the Allotment Rules, such E
allotment can be made in some circumstances but every
effort should· be made to ensure that such situations arise
only in exceptional circumstances. Even under the rules
of transfer of the Government servant, a married couple,
both of whom are government servants are normally F
posted at the same place. Be that as it may, it will be in
the interest of all concerned that Rule 11 (1 )(b) is invoked
sparingly and only by the authorities concerned, upon the
recommendation of the House Allotment Committee.
[para 29] (919-C·H]                                           G

    4.1. The issue with regard to the retention of
government accommodation is controlled by Rule 13 of
the Allotment Rules. The table under clause 2 of the said
Rule provides different periods of retention in different   H
    898   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   situations. Rule 13, sub-rule 5 further carves out an
    exception, allowing the period of retention to be extended
    beyond the period stated in the table under Rule 13(2) of
    the Allotment Rules on payment of higher licence fee.
    There is no reason why a government servant should be
B   permitted to retain the accommodation beyond 4 to 6
    months, which period is permissible under the
    substantive rules. A govern'ment servant knows in
    advance the period within which he has to vacate the
    accommodation allotted to him as part of his employment
    and so he has to surrender the house in question within
c
    the scheduled time. What exceptional cases are
    contemplated under Rule 13(5) of the Allotment Rules is
    nowhere indicated. No guidelines are provided and it is
    only for the authcrities concerned to decide whether the
    case falls in that category or not. There are no compelling
D   circumstances for permitting discretion to the authorities
    under Rule 13(5) of the Allotment Rules. Rules 13(1) and
    13(2) are comprehensive, specific and provide more than
    reasonable time for a government servant to vacate the
    accommodation allotted to him/her. The Court cannot
E   lose sight of the fact that a large number of employees
    under different categories are awaiting their allotments
    and are being deprived of this benefit for long periods
    because of excessive invocation of such discretionary
    powers. The provision is unguided and arbitrary and
F   cannot stand the scrutiny of law. More so, the licence fee
    indicated is obviously minimal in comparison to th~
    market rent for the said premises. It is a matter which a
    Court can safely take judicial notice of. Compelled by
    these circumstances, Rule 13(5) is not sustainable and
G   the authorities are directed not to take recourse to the
    said provision under any circumstance. No case of
    retention of government accommodation beyond the
    periods specified in the table to Rule 13(2) of the
    Allotment Rules shall be entertained by any authority
H   under the Allotment Rules. The directions are passed
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 899
                 AND ORS.

being conscious of the fact that the Allotment Rules are      A
in place and that the authorities are acting fairly and
judiciously. The directions issued by this Court are
primarily explanatory and are intended to narrow the
scope of discretion exercisable by the concerned
authorities. It is a settled canon of Administrative          B
Jurisprudence that wider the power conferred, more
onerous is the responsibility to ensure that such power
is not exercised in excess of what is required or relevant
for the case and the decision. [paras 30-33] [920-A-H; 921-
A-C]                                                          c
      4.2. The authorities are expected to be consistent in
their decisions and bring certainty to the Allotment Rules.
This can only be done by making fair, judicious and
reasoned decisions on the one hand and refraining from
amending the Allot~ent Rules except in exceptional .and D
extraordinary circumstances on the other. The Doctrine
of Certainty can appropriately be applied to legislative
powers as it is applicable to judicial pronouncements ..
This would not mean that the power of the Legislature to
amend rules is restricted by judicial pronouncements. But E
it is impressed upon the Legislature that the rules of the
present kind should not be amended so frequently that
no established practice or settled impression may be
formed in the minds of the employees. Where the
employer has limited resources, there the employee has F
a legitimate expectation of being dealt with fairly in
relation to allotment to such government accommodation.
Consequently, reverting to the case of the appellant, she
is admittedly occupying an earmarked house. An order
of eviction and damages has been passed against her G
and she has taken recourse to an appropriate remedy or
against which she has already taken an appropriate
remedy. The matter in that behalf is still pending final
hearing before the Single Judge. The parties are left to
raise all their contentions before the Single Judge, who H
    900    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A shall decide the matter in accordance with law. However,
  with regard to the interim order passed by the High Court,
  the State is directed to allot to her an alternative
  accommodation under the category which she is entitled
  to, in pursuance of her appointment as State Information
B Commissioner, within fifteen days from today and she
  shall be liable to vacate the accommodation presently in
  her occupation within two weeks thereafter. In the event
  the Government is unable to allot her an alternative
  accommodation of her category for the reason of non-
e availability of such accommodation, she should be
  provided with appropriate accommodation, including
  private accommodation of her status, within the same
  period. [para 34] [921-D-H; 922-A-C]

                        Case Law Reference:
D
          (2000) 8 sec 262         relied on          Para 10
          1979 (3) SCR 1014        relied on          Para 12
          (2001) 1 SCR 203         referred to        Para 14
E         1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 358 referred to         Para 14
          2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 619 referred to         Para 14
          2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 398 referred to         Para 14

F         1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 322 referred to         Para 14
          (2002) 4 sec 578         Followed           Para 15
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7524 of 2011.
G
        From the Judgment & Order dated 16.5.2011 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 752 of
    2011 (0 & M) in C.W.P. No. 20252 of 2008.

        D.P. Singh, Praveen Kumar Aggarwal, Ashok K. Mahajan
H for the Appellant.
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 901
                 AND ORS.
   T.S. Doabia, M.S. Doabia, Sudarshan Singh Rawat for the A
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                 B
      2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 16th May, 2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh whereby the Division Bench stayed the
operation of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge
in the order dated 10th March, 2011 and referred the matter to   c
a larger Bench keeping in view the nature .of the dispute and
its significance.

      3. This Court had issued directions on the same subject
matter and approved the draft rules which were placed before
it vide judgment dated 7th May, 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 8890 D
of 1996. Keeping in view the importance of the issues raised
and the likelihood of such issues arising repeatedly before the
High Court, this Court had issued notice vide order dated 3rd
                                                                •
June, 2011, declined to pass any interim order and directed
that the matter be listed for final hearing at that stage itself. E
Resultantly, this matter was finally heard by this Court.

     4. Before we dwell upon the legal issues arising in the
present appeal, it will be necessary for us to refer to the basic
facts giving rise to the same. The appellant is an officer F
belonging to the Indian Administrative Services and had been
allocated to the Haryana Cadre. She was allotted House No.
55, Sector 5, Chandigarh vide order dated 11th October, 1996,
when her husband was posted on deputation to the Government
of India. She retired from service on 28th February, 2007. As G
per the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration
General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 which has been amended
from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Allotment
Rules'), she was entitled to retain the Government
accommodation previously allotted to her while she was in H
    902    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   service for a period of four months with further possible
    extension upto six months, in terms of Rule 13 of the Allotment
    Rules. This extension could be granted only in exceptional
    cases. In other words, she ought to have vacated the residential
    premises allotted to her by 31st December, 2008.
B
          5. On 31st December, 2007, the appellant was appointed
    as the State Information Commissioner with effect from 3rd
    January, 2008. As per ·her terms of appointment, she was
    entitled to Government accomrnodation and salary/ allowances
    of the same type and amount as were given to the Chief
C   Secretary to the Government of Haryana. She had applied to
    the authorities concerned requesting for allotment of the same
    accommodation, i.e., House No.55, Sector 5, Chandigarh to
    her, but her request had not been accepted. Proceedings for
    eviction began against her before the Estate Officer. The Estate
D   Officer vide his order dated 9th April, 2008 declared the
    appellant an unauthorised occupant and passed an order of
    eviction on 16th April, 2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the
    appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional District
    Judge, Chandigarh which, however, came to be dismissed vide
E   order dated 22nd October, 2008. This order of the Appellate
    Authority was challenged by the appellant through a writ petition
    in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana being Writ Petition
    No. 20252 of 2008. In this writ petition, the contention raised
    by the appellant was that she, in the capacity of an officer of
F   the Administrative Service and later, on becoming the State
    Information Commissioner, was entitled to retain the
    accommodation previously allotted to her. It was contended that
    she was being evicted from the premises illegally, without
    authorization and in an illegal manner. The learned Single Judge
G   of that Court vide order dated 10th March, 2011, passed certain
    general directions in relation to the procedure for allotment of
    Government houses, their retention and various other aspects
    relating thereto. The learned Single J.udge modified the order
    dated 1st December, 2008 passed by the Division Bench when
H
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION                     903
       AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

the writ came up for hearing before the Single Judge qua the         A
appellant and directed that as soon as any alternate
accommodation is allotted to her, as per her entitlement under
the Rules, she shall, within two weeks of such allotment, vacate
the house presently under her occupation. Further, he directed
the concerned authorities to sympathetically consider the case       B
of the appellant for waiving of any penal rent imposed upon her
and that no such penal rent would be payable till the
Administrator of U.T. Chandigarh makes his decision in this
regard. However, besides granting these reliefs to the
appellant, the Court also passed the following directions :          c
    "Having heard Dr. Dhemka IAS in person and learned
    Senior Standing counsel for UT. Administration and
    keeping in view the fact that a number of Government
    houses kept un-allotted under the orders of this Court serve
    no one's purpose and rather their condition is deteriorating     D
    for want of proper up-keep and maintenance, the interim
    order dated 14.12.2009 is modified and the Chandigarh
    Administration is permitted to allot the vacant houses to
    the eligible applicants, subject to the following conditions/
    directions:                                                      E

    (i) No allotment shall be made in exercise of the
    discretionary powers of the Administrator, UT., or Chief
    Ministers of Punjab and Haryana.

    (ii) No house shall be allotted 'out of turn' without prior      F
    permission of this Court.

    (iii) No house shall be 'earmarked' for any particular office/
    officer till the earlier 'earmarked' house which were
    subsequently 'de-earmarked' and allowed to be retained           G
    by the officers, who were not entitled to such allotment as
    their seniors in terms of pay, rank or status were still
    awaiting allotment of that Type or above houses, are got
    vacated except in the case of the SSP, Chandigarh in
                                                                     H
    904     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         relation to whom one time concession has been granted
          vide order dated 07.03.2011.

          (iv) A list of the 'prospective allottees' shall be prepared
          and displayed on the websites of the Chandigarh
          Administration two weeks in advance inviting objections,
B
          if any, from the aggrieved officers/officials who might
          assert their preferential claim. It is only after considering/
          deciding their objections that the allotment letters shall be
          issued.
c         (v) The list of the prospective allottees shall be placed
          before this Court also on the adjourned date and any
          aggrieved officer/official shall be entitled to submit
          objections thereto;

D         (vi) A public notice of the information at Sr. Nos. (iv) and
          (v) above shall be got published by the Chandigarh
          Administration at least in two daily newspapers;

          (vii) No further 'addition' of the houses shall be made to
          the discretionary quota of the Chief Ministers of Punjab and
E         Haryana nor the possession of the vacant houses
          exceeding the said quota, as it exists today, shall be given
          to the allottees.

          (viii) An order of precedence amongst the functionaries of
F         Constitutional, Statutory and Executive Authorities shall be
          prepared and placed before the Court on the adjourned
          date."

       6. Aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned
  Single Judge, as afore-noticed, Chandigarh Administration
G preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of that Court
  being LPA No. 752 of 2011 which resulted in the order dated
  16th May: 2011, whereby the Court stayed the directions of the
  learned Single Judge and directed the matter to be heard by
  a larger Bench. The basic contention raised before the Division
H
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 905
      AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

Bench was that since the prevalent Allotment Rules had been A
framed with the approval of this Court as per its order dated
7th May, 1996, no directions contrary thereto could be issued
by the learned Single Judge. A somewhat similar argument is
 also raised before us in the present appeal.
                                                                 B
       7. It is an undisputed position, which also appears from
the record, that a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana, in Writ Petition No. 16863 of 1994 entitled Court on
 its own motion v. Advisor to the Administration, U. T.
 Chandigarh & Ors. had noticed the arbitrariness in the practice C
 of allotment of houses in the Union Territory of Chandigarh
(hereinafter referred to as 'U.T., Chandigarh'). It was noticed
in that judgment that the allotments were being made contrary
to the earlier Allotment Rules. The Bench struck down Rule 7
 of the earlier Allotment Rules, that had been in force at the
relevant time, as arbitrary, quashed certain allotments made in D
favour of the officers and issued certain directions vide its
judgment dated 1st June, 1995. The Chandigarh Administration
had preferred an appeal before this Court against this judgment
which, as already noticed, was registered as C.A. No. 8890 of
1996 and finally disposed of vide order dated 7th May, 1996. E
A three Judge Bench of this Court had set aside the order of
the High Court and approved the draft rules which were placed
before it. This Court in its judgment also directed certain
amendments to be carried out to the draft rules particularly
Rules 2(k), 4 and provisos to Rules 13 and 19. In furtherance F
to this, the Chandigarh Administration issued a notification
dated 28th June, 1996 duly publishing the Allotment Rules of
1996 with which we are concerned in this case. This Court had
granted liberty to the Chandigarh Administration to carry out
amendments to the Allotment Rules, if necessary. These G
Allotment Rules were thereafter amended from time to time, but
the Allotment Rules of 1996 still substantially remain in force
till date.

    8. The allotment of government accommodation is H
    906    SUPREME; COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   governed by the statutory regime and the Allotment Rules are
    concerned with various facets of this concept. The Allotment
    Rules of 1996 cover concepts such as allotment, vacation,
    cancellation and preferential allotments of government
    accommodations. Despite the fact that the Allotment Rules are
B   in force their proper implementation still remains an elusive
    endeavour. The grievance of the officers/officials has still
    persisted with regard to the manner in which the discretion
    under the Rules were being exercised. In other words, the
    element of discretion vested under these rules has caused
c   serious dissatisfaction with the implementation of these
    Allotment Rules.

        9. Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated by
  existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the
  decision making process and the decision taken are based on
D irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such an
  action can normally be termed as 'arbitrary'. Where the process
  of decision making is fol!owed but proper reasoning is not
  recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in
  the category of arbitrariness. Of course, sufficiency or otherwise
E of the reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration
  within the scope of judicial review. Rationality, reasonableness,
  objectivity and application of mind are some of the pre-
  requisites of proper decision making. The concept of
  transparency in the decision making process of the State has
F also become an essential part of our Administrative law.

         10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic
    adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or
    called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court
G   may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government
    merely because it feels that another decision would have been
    more fair or wise, scientific or logical. The principle of
    reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action
    is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its
H   interpretation will always depend upon the facts and
  ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 907
        AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

 circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can A
 also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [(2000) 8
 sec 262J.
        11. Action by the State, whether administrative or
  executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory
                                                                           8
  provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern
  executive action still such action, especially if it could potentially
  affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and
  transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules
  vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The
  exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and          C
  good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities,
  when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative
  nature. The standard of fairness is also dependant upon
  certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons, subject
  to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably         D
  anticipate the order for the action that the State is likely to take
  in a given situation. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt
  elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the State would then
  differ from person to person and from situation to situation, even
  if the determinative factors of the situations in question were          E
  identical. This uncertainty must be avoided. The Allotment Rules
  have been framed with the approval of this Court and thereafter
  have been amended by the State Government with the intention
  to give some clarity and certainty to the implementation of the
. Allotment Rules, rather than subjecting it to further challenge on       F
· the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination. A Government
  servant has a reasonable expectation of being dealt with justly
  and fairly in receiving rights that are granted to him/her under
  the Allotment Rules. Allotment of Government accommodation
  is one of the statutory benefits which a Government servant is           G
  entitled to under the Allotment Rules and, therefore, fair
  implementation of these Rules is a sine qua non to fair exercise
  of authority and betterment of the employee-employer
  relationship between the Government servant and the
  Government.                                                              H
     908    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       12. The public law principles controlling the administrative
  actions of the public authorities are well settled. Right from the
  case of Ramana Dayaram Sheffy v. International Airport
  Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] this Court cautioned that
  conditions of work cannot be arbitrarily altered and held that
B even the power of relaxation has to be exercised within the
  limited scope available, failing which, it would tantamount to
  denial of opportunity to employees.

        13. Another settled principle of law, applicable to the
C present case, is the scope of judicial review of such actions,
  which is usually quite limited. The Court has the power,
  depending on the facts and circumstances of. a given case, to
  issue appropriate directions in exercise of jurisdiction under
  Article. 226 of the Constitution of India (by the High Court) and
  under Article 32 read with Article· 141 of the Constitution of India
D (by this Court).

          14. In the case of E.S.P. Rajaram and Ors. v. Union of
     India and Ors. [(2001) 1 SCR 203], this Court explained that
     the source of power of this Court to issue directions and pass
E    the orders, as was explained in paragraph 18 of the case titled
     Union of India & Ors. VS. M. Bhaskar & Ors. [(1996) 4 sec
    416], could be traced to Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
     This provision vests power in this Court to pass such decree
     or make such orders as would be necessary for doing
F   complete justice in the context of any case or matter pending
    before it. This provision contains no limitation which provides
    the causes or circumstances in which such power may be
    exercised. The exercise of power is left completely to the
    discretion of the highest Court of the country and its order or
G   decree is thereafter binding on all Courts or Tribunals
    throughout the territory of India. However, in the case of
    Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee vs. C.K. Rajan
    [(2003) 7 sec 546] this Court, while specifying the scope and .
    ambit of the Public Interest Litigation, clearly distinguished
H   between the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the
  ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION                     909
        AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

  Constitution and the powers of this Court under Article 142 of A
  the Constitution and observed '[T]he Court would ordinarily not
  step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts
  although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the
  parties, it does not have a power akin to Article 142 of the
   Constitution of India'. Usefully, reference can also be made to B
  the judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance Airport
   Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India and Ors.
   [(2006) 10 sec 1], where while considering the scope for
  judicial interference in matters of administrative decisions, this
   Court held that it is trite law that exercise of power, whether    c
   legislative or administrative, will be set aside if there is manifest
   error in the exercise of such power or if the exercise of power
   is manifestly arbitrary. Courts would exercise such power
   sparingly and would hardly.interfere in a manner which may
   tantamount to enacting a law. They must primarily serve to D
. bridge any gaps or to provide for peculiar unforeseen situations
   that may emerge from the facts and circumstances of a given
   case. These directions would be in force only till such time as
   the competent legislature enacts laws on the same issue. The
   high courts could exercise this power, again, with great caution E
   and circumspection. Needless to say, when the High Court
   issues directions, the same ought not to be in conflict with laws
   remaining in force and with the directions issued by this Court.
   In the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Manpreet Singh
   [(1992) 1 sec 380] while dealing with a matter of admission
 . to engineering colleges and reservation of seats etc., this Court F
   held as under:

      "11. Counsel for Chandigarh Administration and the
      college (petitioners in SLP Nos. 16066 and 16065 of
      1991) contended that the High Court has exceeded its            G
      jurisdiction in granting the impugned directions. He
      submitted that High Court, while exercising the writ
      jurisdiction conferred .upon by Article 226 of the
      Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority
      over the rule-making authority nor can it rewrite the rules.    H
     910    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A        If the rule or any portion of it was found to be bad, the High
          Court could have struck it down and directed the rule-
          making authority to re-frame the rule and make admissions
         on that basis but the High Court could not have either
         switched the categories or directed that Shaurya Chakra
B        should be treated as equivalent to Vir Chakra. By its
         directions, the High Court has completely upset the course
         of admissions under this reserved quota and has gravely
         affected the chances of candidates falling in category 4 by
         downgrading them as category 5 without even hearing
         them. These are good reasons for the categorisation done
         by the Administration which was adopted by the college.

         21. While this is not the place to delve into or detail the
         self-constraints to be observed by the courts while
        exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226, one of them,
D       which is relevant herein, is beyond dispute viz., while acting
         under Article 226, the High Court does not sit and/or act
        as an appellate authority over the orders/actions of the
        subordinate authorities/tribunals. Its jurisdiction is
        supervisory in nature. One of the main objectives of this
E       jurisdiction is to keep the government and several other
        authorities and tribunals within the bounds of their
        respective jurisdiction. The High Court must ensure that
        while performing this function it does not overstep the well
        recognised bounds of its own jurisdiction."
F
        15. It is a settled canon of Constitutional Jurisprudence that
   this Court in the process of interpreting.the law can remove any
   lacunae and fill up the gaps by laying down the directions with
   reference to the dispute before it; but normally it cannot declare
G a new law to be of general application in the same manner as
   the Legislature may do. This principle was stated by a Seven-.
   Judge Bench of this Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao
 . v. State of Kamataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578].
        16. On a proper analysis of the principles stated by this
H
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 911
       AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

         a
Court in catena of judgments including the judgment afore- A
referred, it is clear that the courts can issue directions with
regard to the dispute in a particular case, but should be very
reluctant to issue directions which are legislative in nature. Be
that as it may, because of the new dimensions which
constitutional law has come to include, it becomes imperative B
for the courts in some cases, to pass directions to ensure that
statutory or executive authorities do not act arbitrarily,
discriminatorily or contrary to tt-ie settled laws. It was in light of
these principles that this Court, vide itsjudgment dated 7th May,
1996 set aside the Full Bench Judgment of the High Court of         c
Punjab and Haryana, brought into force some appropriate rules
and sought to ensure that the competent authority acted in
accordance with law and that it avoided total arbitrariness in
allocation of government houses to its officers and employees.
Once those rules have come into force and were amended from D
time to time _as per the leave granted by this Court, in our
considered view, it was not proper exercise of judicial discretion
and jurisdiction to pass directions, which were in direct conflict
with the Allotment Rules which were approved by in conflict this
Court or with the directions which were issued by this Court on
earlier occasions. Shortly, we shall proceed to discuss the E
scope and effect of the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court, their correctness and impact upon the
existing rules and the lacuna, if any, which still exists in day-to-
day implementation of the Allotment Rules.
                                                                    F
     17. On the analysis of the above principles, it emerges that
the Court would exercise its jurisdiction to issue appropriate
writ, order or directions with reference to the facts and
circumstances of a given case. Normally, the courts would not
step in to pass directions, which could, at times, be construed G
as a form of legislation. Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution
confer on this Court and the High Court the power to issue
directions, orders or writs for achieving the objectives of those
Articles. The courts, in the past, have issued directions for
various purposes. In public interest, the courts may pass H
     912    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A   directions and even appoint committees for inducing the
     Government to carry out the constitutional mandate. The courts
     have been taking due care while exercising such jurisdiction
     so that they do not overstep the circumscribed judicial limits.

 B        18. In light of the above legal framework, we would now
     revert to examine the legal questions raised before us. There
     are primarily three issues which require the consideration of this
     Court:

           1.    The interpretation and enforcement of the Allotment
C                Rules framed by Notification dated 28th June, 1996
                 and the amendments made to it from time to time;

           2.    The relevancy of the directions issued by this Court
                 vide its judgment dated 8th December, 1995; and
D          3.   The conflict between the directions of this Court and
                the Rules framed thereafter and the directions
                issued by the learned Single Judge of the High
                Court of Punjab and Haryana.

E       19. We would further be required to examine whether the
  Allotment Rules, as amended from time to time, are in conflict
  with the earlier judgment of this Court or whether they suffer from
  any basic legal infirmity or are ex facie arbitrary and, if so, what
  directions could be passed to remedy such elements of
F arbitrariness, particularly, in view of the directions issued by the
  learned Single Judge of the High Court. We may notice that
  during the course of arguments before us, it was also pointed
  out that because the action of the authorities in allotting two
  houses of the same category, one at Chandigarh and the other
G outside Chandigarh (both within the State of Punjab and/or
  Haryana) which is not permissible, great hardship and
  discrimination has been caused to the employees placed in the
  same category. Secondly, it was also argued that. taking
  advantage of the time factor involved in the decision making
H by the Committee, the officers allotted to higher category
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 913
       AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

accommodation continue to retain both houses i.e. one of a A
lower category and other of a higher category for an
unnecessarily long period, thus, causing prejudice to the
interests of others. For example, it is alleged that in the case
of the appellant, she is retaining the higher category house and
continues to hold such accommodation even now, when she is B
actually entitled to an accommodation of lower category.
However, according to the appellant, as State Information
Commissioner also, she is entitled to the same
accommodation and perks that the Chief Secretary of the State
is entitled to. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that there is c
no transparency in the functioning of the Allotment Committee.
According to the respondents, she will not be entitled to retain
an earmarked accommodation.

      20. It is also contended on behalf of different parties that
arbitrariness in allotment of houses still persists. There is no D
need for adding houses to the Chief Minister's pool and
increasing the discretionary quota. It is the claim of the appellant
that the imposition of damages/charges on her is arbitrary and
she is entitled to retain the same accommodation. First and
foremost, we have to consider the nature of the changes in the E
Allotment Rules as approved by this Court, whether such
changes are disadvantageous to the government servants and
whether they increase the arbitrariness in the implementation
of the Allotment Rules. We have already noticed that the rules
in force at the relevant time were the subject matter of F
controversy before the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and had given rise to filing of a Special Leave
Petition (converted into C.A. No. 8890 of 1996), It was in this
petition that the draft rules had been filed, approved with certain
amendments, as directed by this Court and thereafter published G
vide Notification dated 28th June, 1996, to finally result in the
Allotment Rules. These rules were also subjected to different
amendments from time to time and major amendments were
carried out in the years 1997, 1998, 2004, 2007 and 2009.
Besides these, certain guidelines were also framed which H
     914    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   became part of the Allotment Rules. These amendments related
   to changes in the definition clauses as well as the substantive
   rules. For example, Rule 7, which is related to the earmarking
   of houses was amended on 7th May, 1998; Rule 8, concerning
   the Controlling Authority was amended vide Notification dated
B 2nd June, 1997; Rule 11, which related to Out-of-Turn Allotment,
   was amended vide Notifications in 1997 and again vide
   Notification dated 4th August, 2004; Rules 13 and 14 relating
   to the period for which allotment subsists and concessional
   period for further retention and fixation of licence fee were
c amended by different amendments including those dated 17th
   December, 2009 and 11th October, 2007 respectively. These
  amendments have to be examined in. light of the fact that this
  Court granted leave vide its judgment dated 7th May, 1996 to
  the Chandigarh Administration to amend the rules, as and when
D it considered such amendment necessary. The leave granted
  by this Court obviously means that the amendment should be
  necessity based and not be intended to introduce the element
  of arbitrariness or discrimination in the rules and resultantly in
  the allotment of the houses to the government officers/ officials.

E         21. Having stated the aforementioned principles, we will
     now proceed to discuss the scope and desirability of the
    directions issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
    of Punjab and Haryana. The learned Single Judge, while
    dealing with the case of the present appellant, issued certain
F   general directions with regard to Out-of-Turn Allotment, the
    addition and earmarking of houses, allotment of discretionary
    quota and the Chief Minister's quota, instances of allotment of
    two houses to one officer, the display of lists of prospective
    allottees on the website and the drawing up of an order of
G   precedence amongst the Constitutional, Statutory and Executive
    functionaries. The Court issued prohibitory orders as well. All
    these directions had been stayed by the Division Bench of that
    Court in an appeal preferred by the Chandigarh Administration.

        22. As already noticed, fairness in State action is the
H
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 915
      AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

essence of proper governance. Where the authotities exercise A
their powers under the rules, they are expected to exercise the
discretion vested in them fairly and with the intention to attain
a balance between exercise of discretionary power and the
larger public interest sought to be achieved by such discretion.
Arbitrariness or irresponsible exercise of the power vested in B
the authorities, has been a matter of great concern before the
 courts. The Full Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana
 had declared Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules of 1972 as
 unconstitutional and being without any proper guidelines
 because the possibility of exercising unguided power resulted c
 in arbitrariness on various occasions. Though that judgment had
 been set aside by this Court, surely it was still expected that
 the draft rules, as approved by this Court, would be acted upon
 fairly and without arbitrariness. However, the matters have not
 ended with the implementation of the new rules and, therefore, D
 litigation in respect of these rules has been a continuous affair.
 The matter, which can be said to be of some public importance
  is not a question of the interpretation of the Allotment Rules as
  such, but is one of the manner of exercise of power with
  reference to the Allotment Rules.
                                                                 E
     23. Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules, which deals with the
creation of pools of residences, provides for earmarking of
houses for specified officers from different branches of the
State Administration and those houses which have not been
so earmarked for any particular class of Government F
employees would be allotted to the general pool of the
Chandigarh Administration. This Rule and its sub-Rules read
together do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, as
eannarking of houses is a known concept in relation to allotment
of houses. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of G
Punjab and Haryana has given a clarificatory direction that when
earmarked houses are occupied by an officer, who is at that
time not entitled to that house, another house would not be
earmarked for any particular officer, until the occupied house
is vacated. One exception is carved out in favour of SSP, H
     916     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A    Chandigarh in terms of order dated 7th March, 2011. We do
      not think that this clarificatory direction is violative of any rule
     or is otherwise impermissible. These directions attempt to
     ensure that there should not be more than one earmarked
     house for the same post as per the need. This clarification or
 B explanatory direction would also ensure timely vacation of the
     earmarked houses by the officers concerned, upon their
     transfer, promotion or posting to a post where they are not
     entitled to an earmarked accommodation. Thus, we see no
     reason to interfere with imposition of such a condition which is
C in conformity with the spirit of the aforesaid Rule. We, thus
     direct that no new house for any category/post should be
    earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such
    category/post has been vacated and placed in the general pool
    of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment in accordance
    with the Allotment Rules.
0
          24. The next direction to which certain objections were
    raised by the parties appearing before this Court is with regard
    to Out-of-Turn Allotment and allotment of houses in exercise of
    the discretionary powers of the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh
E and the Chief Minister of Punjab and Haryana respectively. At
   the outset, it may be noticed that there is no specific rule
   controlling the discretionary allotment by the Administrator, U.T.,
   Chandigarh and the Chief Minister of State of Punjab and
    Haryana respectively. However, Rule 8 identifies the Controlling
F Authority which is the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, who
   would be the co-ordinating and controlling authority in respect
   of the houses belonging to Chandigarh Administration. He has
   been given the power to add or withdraw houses from any pool
   for the purposes of allotment to any class or category of eligible
G government employees and may also change the classification
   of houses on the recommendation of the House Allotment
   Committee. Rule 11 deals with Out-of-Turn Allotments, i.e. the
   House Allotment Committee may allot a house on Out-of-Turn
   basis to the cases specified under clauses (a) to (g) of that
H Rule. The House Allotment Committee in its Meeting dated 27th
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION                     917
       AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

March, 2003 has further approved certain guidelines for the Out-    A
of-Turn Allotments.

      25. Rule 11 is a very comprehensive rule which deals with
the specific situations where Out-of-Turn Allotment is
permissible. The Allotment Rules and these guidelines are B
intended to control the exercise of discretion by the authorities
concerned in granting out-of-turn allotments. There is some
vagueness in Rule 11(1)(e), i.e. Out-of-Turn Allotments to a
government employee due to the 'functional requirements' of
the post. This expression is neither explained nor have any C
guidelines been issued in this regard. The criteria provided in
Guideline (2) for allotments made in public interest under Rule
 11 (1 )(f) is quite similar to the criteria for determining functional
 requirements. Both these heads refer to the nature of official
duties and functions to be performed by the officer concerned.
Thus, the category of 'functional requirement' allotment is D
 nothing but a category created to allow more and more
 allotments under this head. In light of these rules, the absolute ·
 restriction on Out-of-Turn Allotments imposed by the learned
 Single Judge may not be just and fair and will be opposed to
 the statutory provisions of the Allotment Rules. Therefore, we E
 are unable to sustain such a restriction. However, we would
 further clarify that the powers vested in the concerned authority
 under Rules 8 and 11 of the Allotment Rules will only be
 exercised: (a) upon recommendation of the House Allotment
 Committee; (b) such recommendation should be supported by F
 reasons with the requirements of the job and the data in support
 thereof; and (c). no allotments would be made under the
 provisions of Rule 11(1 )(e). The maximum restriction of 10 per
 cent of all allotments being Out-of-Turn Allotments, as
 contemplated under Rule 11 (2) of the Allotment Rules, shall be G
 operative to entire Rule 11 as well as to Rule 8 of the Allotment
 Rules. In no event shall Out-of-Turn Allotment exceed 10 per
 cent of all houses allotted in a year. This is primarily to control
 the exercise of discretionary power as well as to ensure that
 the persons entitled to residential accommodation in the H
     918   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A general pool are not made to wait unduly for an indefinite
  period.

       26. Allotments under different categories and with the
  restrictions as stated in the Allotment Rules and the guidelines
B shall continue to be in force and should not be amended or
  altered except iri exceptional circumstances by the appropriate
  body. This alone can add some certainty to the application of
  these provisions and to the expectations of the government
  employees, who have a legitimate expectation of allotment of
C government accommodation as part of their perks.

        27. We also direct that the purpose of Rule 8 of the
  Allotment Rules is not to allow discretionary allotment but is to
  provide overall powers of coordination and control to the
  Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh. When the words 'for the
D purposes of allotment to any class or category of eligible
  government servant' appearing in Rule 8 are examined, these
  have to necessarily be construed to mean the allotment made
  in terms of the Allotment Rules. Adding or withdrawing houses
  to the general pool is a power vested in the authority under Rule
E 8, but allotments still are to be made in accordance with the
  substantive rules enabling the authorities to make regular
  allotments.

         28. Neither the judgment of this Court passed in Civil
  Appeal No. 8890of1996 nor the Allotment Rules duly notified
F by the Government, require publishing of list of prospective
  allottees on website and inviting objections to the same. Rule
  9 of the Alltoment Rules requires the authorities to invite
  applications for allotment of accommodation and also provides
  the manner in which the allotment of houses is to be made
G including showing the seniority of the applicants category-wise.
  There is no provision requiring invitation of objections. Once
  there is no rule, in our considered view, it will not serve any
  fruitful purpose to invite objections to each allotment apart from
  unnecessarily delaying allotments and rendering the working of
H
 ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 919
       AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
the Rules more complex and difficult. Further, Rule 9(5) of the A
Allotment Rules is a complete safeguard in regard to proper
maintenance of the seniority list of the applicants. Thus, we set
aside the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in that
behalf. However, we direct that the final list of allotments made
by the House Allotment Committee should be placed on the B
website of the Government, as all interested persons would be
entitled to know whether they have been allotted the
accommodation or not.

     29. Now, we will deal with the other two arguments that            C
were raised before us. One argument was in regard to the
allotment of two houses to a single officer and/or to his family,
one in Chandigarh and one in some other part of the same
State; and the second was regarding the period of retention of
the allotted house after the· employee is retired, promoted,
transferred or is sent on deputation etc. These are matters of          D
serious concern. There is no rule that has been brought to our
notice or is available on the records providing that an officer
who is posted outside Chandigarh/Panchkula/Mohali and whose
spouse is not entitled to any Government accommodation of
any category can be provided with two houses, one at the                E
DistricVDivision level to which he/she is transferred and another
at Chandigarh and its adjourning areas. In absence of any such
specific rule, we consider it appropriate to direct that the State
shall not allot two different houses to one government servant.
In terms of Rule 11(1)(b) of the Allotment Rules, such allotment        F
can be made in some circumstances but' we are constrained
to observe that every effort should be made to ensure that such
situations arise only in exceptional circumstances. We are
informed that even under the rules of transfer of the Government
servant, a married couple, both of whom are government                  G
servants are normally posted at the same place. Be that as it
may, it will be in the interest of all concerned that Rule 11 (1 )(b)
is invoked sparingly and only by the authorities concerned, upon
the recommendation of the House Allotment Committee.
                                                                        H
    920    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      30. The issue with regard to the retention of government
  accommodation is controlled by Rule 13 of the Allotment Rules.
  The table under clause 2 of the said Rule provides different
  periods of retention in different situations. Rule 13, sub-rule 5
  further carves out an exception, allowing the period of retention
B to be extended beyond the period stated in the table under Rule
  13(2) of the Allotment Rules on payment of higher licence fee.
  We see no reason why a government servant should be
  permitted to retain the accommodation beyond 4 to 6 months,
  which period is permissible under the substantive rules. A
c government servant knows in advance the period within which
  he has to vacate the accommodation a'llotted to him as part of
  his employment and so he has to surrender the house in
  question within the scheduled time.

         31. What exceptional cases are contemplated under Rule
D 13(5) of the Allotment Rules is nowhere indicated. No guidelines
  are provided and it is only for the authorities concerned to
  decide whether the case falls in that category or not. We are
  unable to see any compelling circumstances for permitting
  discretion to the authorities under Rule 13(5) of the Allotment
E Rules. Rules 13(1) and 13(2) are comprehensive, specific and
  provide more than reasonable time for a government servant
  to vacate the accommodation allotted to him/her. The Court
  cannot lose sight of the fact that a large number of employees
  under different categories, are awaiting their allotments and are
F being deprived of this benefit for long periods because of
  excessive invocation of such discretionary powers. The
  provision is unguided and arbitrary and cannot stand the
  scrutiny of law. More so, the licence fee indicated is obviously
  minimal in comparison to the market rent for the said premises.
G It is a matter which a Court can safely take judicial notice of.
         32. Compelled by these circumstances, we find Rule 13(5)
    not sustainable and the authorities are directed not to take
    recourse to the said provision under any circumstance. No case
    of retention of government accommodation beyond the periods
H
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION                     921
     AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

specified in the table to Rule 13(2) of the Allotment Rules shall   A
be entertained by any authority under the Allotment Rules.

     33. We have issued the above directions being conscious
of the fact that the Allotment Rules are in place and that the
authorities are acting fairly and judiciously. The directions that .
                                                                     8
we have issued are primarily explanatory and are intende~ to
narrow the $Cope of discretion exercisable by the concerned
authorities. It is a settled canon of Administrative Jurisprudence
that wider the power conferred, more onerous is the
responsibility to ensure that such power is not exercised in C
excess of what is required or relevant ·for the case and the
decision.

      34. We expect the authorities to be consistent in their
decisions and bring certainty to the Allotment Rules. This can
only be done by making fair, judicious and reasoned decisions D
on the one hand and refraining from amending the Allotment
Rules except in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
on the other. The Doctrine of Certainty can appropriately be
applied to legislative powers as it is applicable to judicial
pronouncements. We must not be understood to say that the E
power of the Legislature to amend rules is restricted by judicial
pronouncements, but we want to impress upon the Legislature
that the rules of the present kind should not be amended so
frequently that no established practice or settled impression
may be formed in the minds of the employees. Where the F
employer has limited resources, there the employee has a
legitimate expectation of being dealt with fairly in relation to
allotment to such government accommodation. Consequently,
reverting to the case of the appellant, she is admittedly
occupying an earmarked house. An order of eviction and G
damages has been passed against her and she has taken
recourse to an appropriate remedy or against which she has
already taken an appropriate remedy. The matter in that behalf
is still pending final hearing before the learned Single Judge.
The parties are left to raise all their contentions before the
                                                                  H
     922    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A learned Single Judge, who shall decide the matter in
  accordance with law. However, with regard to the interim order
  passed by the High Court, we direct the State to allot to her an
  alternative accommodation under the category which she is
  entitled to, in pursuance of her appointment as State Information
B Commissioner, within fi~een days from today and she shall be
  liab!e to vacate the accommodation presently in her occupation
  within two weeks thereafter. We make it clear that in the event
  the Government is unable to allot her an alternative
  accommodation of her category. for the reason of non-
e availability of such accommodation, she should be provided
  with appropriate accommodation, including private
  accommodation of her status, within the same period.

          35. The appeal, for the reasons afore-recorded and with
     the directions afore-given, is disposed of while leaving the
J)   parties to bear their own costs.

     D.G.                                    Appeal disposed of.