ORDER

1. Since common question of law has been raised, these appeals are being disposed of together. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in its judgment dated 7-11-1987, decided Civil Application No. 980 of 1980 and batch. One of the questions therein raised was, whether the persons falling in categories (iii) and (vi) in the Government Resolution dated 18-2-1975 are entitled to priority in allotment of government quarters under hire purchase scheme? The High Court, after elaborate Consideration, had concluded that:

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the impugned resolutions dated 18-2-1975 and 10-3-1980 are legal and valid save and except priority categories (iii) and (vi) contained therein which are quashed and set aside. Rest of the resolutions shall be operated upon and implemented by the respondent authorities."

2. In these appeals, we are concerned only with regard to categories (iii) and (vi). Admittedly, in the Lower Income Group Housing Scheme, 396 houses were constructed at Pahari at Ahmedabad and were allotted to the government employees on rental basis. Subsequently, the State Government had obtained sanction from the Central Government in May 1969 to convert the scheme into hire purchase scheme and for allotment to the government employees on the criteria indicated therein, namely, continuous residence for five years and also the eligibility criteria excluding the government servants who had already retired from service. Thereafter on 17-4-1971, the Government passed a resolution converting 200 out of 396 houses for allotment on hire purchase basis. On a further resolution dated 22-6-1972 all the 396 houses were pooled for allotment on hire purchase scheme. In the offending resolution the allotment was also sought to be given to category (iii), such of those employees working in Sachivalay (Secretariat) and originally allotted the house at Pahari at Ahmedabad but later they shifted their residence and they voluntarily vacated the houses and shifted to the houses allotted at Gandhinagar with better accommodation on concessional basis. It was also sought to be given to such of those employees in category (vi) who had been transferred outside Ahmedabad on a permanent basis. The entitlement under the scheme came to be challenged by some of the employees in the High Court. As stated earlier, the High Court while upholding other criteria for other categories, quashed the entitlement to the allotment to categories (iii) and (vi). Thus, these appeals by special leave.

3. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that initially when the Government of India had given permission for converting these houses for allotment from rental scheme to hire purchase basis, the requisite qualification of five years stay therein was applicable. In view of the compulsion by the State Government, the category (iii) employees had shifted from Pahari to Gandhinagar. Therefore, they cannot be deprived of their entitlement to allotment on hire purchase basis.

4. Shri Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for category (vi), urges that the impugned Government Resolution militates against the statutory regulation of allotment made pursuant to Section 74 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The Government have, therefore, no power under Section 82 of the Act to pass any resolution contrary to the statutory regulations. It is also contended that the lower income group housing scheme was initiated to benefit the people of lower income group having an annual income of Rs 6000 to purchase the houses on hire purchase scheme. The initial scheme to give benefit to the poorer employees has been given a go-by hitting hard the weaker segments among the employees and their rights and allotment on priority basis was, therefore, defeated. The criteria adopted by the Government are, therefore, irrational and arbitrary and it has no nexus between the object of allotment on hire