Eligibility for housing allotment is determined by specific criteria, including employment affiliation and residency requirements.

Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— The complainant has come up in appeal against the order dated 9.2.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, whereby the complaint of Smt. Padmavati Bai has been dismissed against the Housing Board, Haryana, in which she had complained about the deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board, Haryana.

2. According to the complainant, she is the wife of one Sh. Mahadeo, an employee of the State Bank of India, posted at village Dhanas Housing Colony, Union Territory, Chandigarh. She applied for the allotment of a MIG house at Rohtak to the Housing Board, Haryana on the basis of her husband being an employee of the Central Government/Board or Corporate Body working under the control or supervision of the Haryana Government. Her application was rejected by the Housing Board, Haryana as neither she nor her husband was eligible. Aggrieved against that, she approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, but her complaint has been dismissed.

3. In the present first appeal filed by the complainant-appellant, the only argument advanced by the' learned Counsel for the appellant is, that the State Bank of India is a Board/Body Corporate controlled by the Central Government, hence, the complainant was eligible for applying to the Housing Board, Haryana for the allotment of a house at Rohtak.

4. We have gone through the brochure of the Housing Board, Haryana and have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri V.K. Vashishta, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

5. By no stretch of imagination, the State Bank of India, which has been incorporated under the State Bank of India Act as banking organisation and 50 per cent of its shares are owned by public, can be equated with the Central Government or a Board or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government. In any case, the complainant is neither living in Haryana nor has her husband been posted in Haryana. Therefore, if the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, then an employee of the State Bank of India posted at Madras or Bangalore etc. shall also be eligible for applying for the allotment of a house in Haryana. Surely, this cannot be the intention of the rules and regulations of the Housing Board, Haryana. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.