1. The petitioners are employees of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. They are presently stationed at Lakkidi in Wayanad District. The first petitioner is admittedly a bachelor. The wife and children of the second petitioner are even now residing in the quarters situated in the campus at Mannoothy which was allotted to him at a point of time when he was stationed at Mannoothy. Quarter No.3 which is a type II quarter was initially allotted to the first petitioner. Later, when the second petitioner joined duty at Lakkidi, it was jointly allotted to them. Pursuant to an application made by the third respondent who is also working at Lakkidi for allotment of quarters, the Dean of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University at Pookode issued Ext.R1A order dated 31.05.2013. By that order he inter alia directed that quarter No.3, type II, jointly occupied by the petitioners be converted into family accommodation quarters and allotted to the third respondent with effect from 01.06.2013. When it came to the notice of the Registrar of the University that the said decision was not implemented, the Registrar issued Ext.P3 order dated 20.02.2014, directing the said order to be implemented without fail. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 26.02.2014, challenging Ext.P3 and seeking the following reliefs:
“ i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other or direction to call for the records leading to the Ext.P3 order and set aside the same;
ii) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”
2. The main contention raised is that the third respondent is not entitled to be allotted a type II quarter. It is contended that the petitioners who are eligible to occupy type II quarters, cannot be compelled to occupy a type I quarter. They also contend that the impugned action is malafide.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 have sworn to a counter affidavit dated 07.04.2014. In paragraph 3 thereof, it is stated that the second petitioner is holding official accommodation allotted to him at Mannoothy and that he is sharing another official accommodation at Lakkidi in addition to the said building which is allotted to him. It is contended that the second petitioner cannot occupy two quarters at the same time. In paragraph 4, it is stated that in view of the non-availability of quarters a decision was taken to uniformly allot accommodation in such a fashion that officers with family are allotted family accommodation and others are allotted what is generally called bachelor accommodation. It is also stated that in such cases more than one individual is accommodated in one quarter. In paragraph 7 it is stated that there was a long pending request from the third respondent who was allotted only type I accommodation, for allotment of family accommodation as his family members are residing with him and he is having a tender child. The counter affidavit proceeds to states that taking into account the request of the third respondent and various other requests, a decision was taken on 31.05.2013 to allot different types of quarters to various employees. Relying on Ext.R1A it is contented that by that order the quarter now allotted to the petitioners was converted into family accommodation and allotted to the third respondent and the quarters allotted to the third respondent was allotted to the petitioners jointly. It is stated that notwithstanding the said order a copy of which was made available to the petitioners separately, they did not move out and therefore, on noticing that, Ext.P3 order was issued.
4. I heard Sri.Satheesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Millu Dhandapany, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and 2. The first petitioner is admittedly a bachelor. None of his family members are residing with him. The second petitioner is a married man, but his family members are residing in yet another official accommodation allotted to him at Mannoothy. It is also not in dispute that under the Rules an employee of the University is entitled to official accommodation only at one station. Taking into account the fact that the first petitioner was residing alone in a building which can accommodate more than one person, the second petitioner was permitted to occupy quarter No.3 which is a type II quarter. Later, on account of the demand raised by the third respondent with whom his family members are residing, a decision was taken to allot a larger quarter to him. Thereupon Ext.R1 A order was passed, way back on 31.05.2013. Even assuming that a copy thereof had not been served on the petitioners, that order reflects the decision taken by the competent authority in the matter of allotment of quarters. When that decision was not implemented, Ext.P3 order was issued directing its implementation. The effect of the impugned order is that the petitioners who are sharing a type II quarter which is a bigger quarter, will have to move out to a smaller quarter which is occupied by the third respondent along with his family members. The second petitioner is not admittedly entitled to official accommodation at Lakkidi for the reason that his family members continues to occupy official accommodation at Mannoothy. It was on account of this fact that he was permitted to jointly occupy the quarter allotted to the petitioner who as stated earlier, was residing alone in that quarter. It is evident from the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that there is shortage of accommodation and that taking into account the number of persons residing in a quarter, allotment is made irrespective of the entitlement of the employee. Such an action can in no way be said to be arbitrary or irrational, so long as it has not resulted in provision being made to accommodate the petitioners. The petitioners appear to be more concerned about the size of the quarters allotted to them than the availability of a quarter. They should have in my opinion graciously consented to the decision taken by the University and moved out to enable a co-worker to occupy a type II quarter which was allotted to him on account of need and necessity. No rights of the petitioners have been violated by that action.
I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I however grant them time till 31.05.2014 to move out of the quarters presently occupied by them.
Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG