Mrs. Nasim Khan, Associate Professor, Government APWA College Lahore, petitioner herein, through this Constitutional petition seeks direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents for allotment of House No.33-13, G.O.R. 111, Lahore as also to declare the refusal of the respondents in this behalf as illegal and by way of consequential relief prays for issuance of injunction restraining the respondent No.2 from delivering possession of the aforesaid house to respondent No.4 till the decision of this petition.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that in the year 1975 the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor, Govcnment APWA College, Lahore, in Grade-18. On 7-3-1975 she applied for provision to her Government accommodation but was advised to wait for her turn. She was promoted as Associate Professor on 28-3-1991 in Gradc-19 and again applied for Govenment accommodation, as by then she became entitled to 'B' type accommodation but of no avail.
3. In the month of April, 1992 the House No.33-13, G.O.R.111 fell vacant and sbe requested for allotment of the same on the basis of being a senior applicant but to her dismay the aforesaid accommodation was also allotted to respondent No.4 who was a junior applicant as compared to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the respondents arbitrarily turned down her legitimate claim on one pretext or tile other and had all along been treating her discriminately. He referred to a policy letter No.3EO-5-22/64 issued in 19(A and pointed out that clause 'A' thereof provides that the Government residences are required to be allotted on the principle of first come first served but this principle was flagrantly violated in the case of the petitioner. It was argued that even the statutory functionary exercising administrative powers must conform to the principle of natural justice. He is supposed to act in discharge of his functions -fairly, reasonably and justly., He.
Referred to Messrs Faridsons Ltd.,, Karachi, and another v. Government of Pakistan through its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Karachi and another PLD 1061 Supreme Court 537, in support of his submission. Learned counsel further submitted that the discretion vested in an executive officer is not absolute. It is vested in him for a public purpose and must be exercised for the attainment of that purpose. The discretion is always circumscribed by the scope and the object of the law that created, it but it has to be exercised reasonably, fairly and justly. In support of his submission he relied on Federation of Pakistan and others v. Ch Muhammad Aslamand others(1986 SCMR 916)
5. On a question learned counsel for petitioner candidly accepted the proposition that the petitioner being a civil servant cannot validly lay claim for the allotment of a particular house.
Nevertheless he maintained that since her application for allotment of Government residence is pending decision since 1975 she had prior right for allotment of suitable accommodation.
6. The learned Additional Advocate-General on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has no vested right for all(?Tment of Government provided accommodation in preference to the respondent No.4 who has been transferred to Lahore from another Province of Pakistan. He also alluded to the policy letter referred to above and pointed out that in paragraphthereof the category of Govenrinent employees to which respondent No.4 belongs will have first priority within his respective category as against all other officers of other departments. He also referred to document 'R/1' a policy letter No.IEO-IV-21/76 dated 1st December, 1981 where in para. I it is specifically mentioned that the Government has no legal responsibility for providing residential accommodation to Government servants. He also made reference to document annexed 'R/2' to point out that the provision of residential accommodation is not one of the terms and conditions of service as such she has no vested right to approach this Court for the relief prayed for in this petition.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 controverted the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. In the first place he argued that this petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to show any document on the file indicating that the name of the petitioner was on the top of the waiting list of the employees who had applied for allotment of Government accommodation. H e further stated that to the best of his knowledge, number of other applicants senior to her were awaiting their turn for allotment of government accommodation.
Learned counsel reinforced the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate-General to the effect that the petitioner has no vested legal right for allotment of the house in question nor could establish that it was the responsibility of the Government to provide her residence. In support of his contentions he relied on Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain and another (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 203), Dr. Munir Ahmed, MB.,BS, Medical Officer v. Chairman, House Allotment Committee, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and another (1983 CLC 1783) and Iris Sammuel Gill v.
Government of Punjab (PLD 1979 Lahore 467). It was argued that this Court may interfere in the administrative orders where provision of the right of hearing to the affected is condition precedent and not those passed for purely administrative convenience. He also submitted that the respondent No. 4 was fully entitled to the allotment of the house in question in preference to any other employee of the category as laid down in the policy letter referred to above to which thepetitioner belongs, as also because he has been recently transferred from the Province of Balochistan andas no accommodation available for his residence. Lastly he stated that her refusal to accept the offer for the allotment of 'C' type accommodation on its construction further renders her ineligible for the grant of the discretionary relief from this Court.
8. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents on the file. Before commencement of the arguments on meritsof the case the learned Addfitional Advocate-General was asked to apprise the Court as to when the petitioner at the earliest can be provided Government accommodation. OnInstructions from the respondent No. 2 he made a categorical statement to the effect that she will be provided house on priority basis out of 'C' type residences, the constructionhereof is about to start as the tenders for construction had already been called and newly constructed houses will be available within a period of eight to ten months. He pointed outat there is no vacant house available in 'B' or 'C' type residences and ordinarily she will have to wait till 1994 for allotment of accommodation as per her entitlement.
9. It is significant to mention that since the house in question, stands already allotted in favour of respondent No. 4, no direction in the nature of mandamus can be issued to therespondents for the allotment of the same to the petitioner. Even otherwise, she had no vested right nor the respondents can be compelled to provide her " Government residence in view of the clear instructions embodied in policy decisions dated 1-12-1981 'R/1' and 7-4-1983 'R/2' respectively. The allotmentorder passed by the Government functionary being purely administrative in nature and based upon administrative convenience, conferring no right on the petitioner to be heard priorits passing cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Nevertheless it is true that the executive authority is obliged to pass order fairly, justly and reasonably. The allotment of the house in question made in favourrespondent No. 4 as per policy letter issued in 1964 and relied upon by the petitioner herself is unexceptionable. The order of allotmentasundoubtedlv passed in exercise of discretion, which cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination to be arbitrarily. He took into consideration that the respondent No. 4 was transferred from Balochistan and belonged to category of employees who are to be allotted Government residences on priority basis.
10. In these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of the house in question and the same stands rightly allotted in favour of respondent No. 4. It is, however, clarified that she will ' be allotted a house in 'C' type accommodation on its construction in terms of commitment made by the respondent No. 2 through the learned Additional Advocate--General.
The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merit,but subject to the observation made above, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.