The legality of the housing scheme reservation for U.T. Government employees was determined based on the provisions of housing board regulations, relevant acts, and the interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

VIJENDER JAIN, J.

1. C. M. is allowed and counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is taken on record. C.W.P. No. 1613 of 2008

2. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ or direction for setting aside Clause III (i) and other offending Clauses like Clause IV in the impugned scheme dated 14-1-2008 (Annexure P-l) in which all the dwelling units have been reserved only for U.T. Government employees etc. and not even one dwelling unit has been left out for general public.

3. Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned scheme is ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. The respondents cannot reserve 100% dwelling units for U.T. Government employees alone. While referring to the eligibility as well as reservation criteria which is to the following effect :-

"III. Eligibility : (i) The applicant should be a regular employee of Chandigarh Administration or its Board/Corporation or Punjab and Haryana High Court or on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration on the date of the opening of the scheme or should have retired in last three years from the date of opening of the scheme.

IV. Reservation There shall be the following reservation :-

a) 12½% in favour of applicants belonging to Schedules Castes (SC) employees.

b) 5% in favour of the other Backward Classes (OBC) employees.

c) 5% in favour of Ex-Servicemen employees".

4. He contended that the scheme envisages reservation only for the employees and no welfare of general public has been kept in mind, as such, the scheme is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside. In this regard, he placed reliance upon Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and another, AIR 1989 SC 903. On the basis of Deepak Sibals case, it was vehemently contended by Mr. Amar Vivek that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation and the making out a class of employees working in the Chandigarh Administration for granting the benefit under the aforesaid scheme is not based on an intelligible differentia and has no rational nexus to the object to provide housing in Union Territory of Chandigarh. He has based this contention on the basis of observations made in Deepak Sibals case in Paragraph 14, which are to the following effect :-

"It is difficult to accept the contention that the Government employees or the employees of Semi-Government and other institutions, as mentioned in the impugned rule, stand on a different footing from the employees of private concerns, in so far as the question of admission to evening classes is concerned. It is true that the service conditions of employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. are different, and they may have greater security of service, but that hardly matters for the purpose of admission in the evening classes. The test is whether the employees of private establishments are equally in a disadvantageous position like the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. in attending morning classes. There can be no doubt and it is not disputed that both of them stand on an equal footing and there is no difference between these two classes of employees in that regard. To exclude the employees of private establishments will not therefore, satisfy the test of intelligible differentia that distinguishes the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. grouped together from the employees of private establishments. It is true that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, in that case the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one."

5. In reply to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that the