Karnataka HC Rejects Retired Housing Board Staff’s Bid For 96 Preferential Sites, Saying Former Service Alone Creates No Right

The appellants, comprising a pensioners’ union and former employees of the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB), sought preferential allotment of 96 sites to retired KHB employees.

After the State Government’s Finance Department objected, the proposed preferential allotment was cancelled.

The appellants’ writ petition seeking to quash the relevant State endorsements and compel approval of the allotment was dismissed by the Single Judge, who held that former KHB employment did not confer a right to preferential allotment.

The appellants challenged that decision in this appeal

A writ of mandamus requires the claimant to establish a legal or fundamental right and a corresponding public duty owed by the respondent authority to enforce that right.

Former employment, without an independent legal entitlement, does not itself create a right to preferential treatment in the allotment of public sites.

The Court cited no statute or precedent as the basis for this rule

The appellants relied on their status as former KHB employees to seek preferential allotment.

The Court held that they had not established any legal or fundamental right to that preference, or a corresponding duty on the respondents to allot sites to them.

It also accepted the Single Judge’s reasoning that preferential treatment could not be justified solely by former employment, particularly where the KHB’s purpose was to provide housing to those in need.

The Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition

The Court clarified that the appellants could apply or participate if KHB invited applications for site allotment.

It directed that the amounts paid by the appellants under the preferential category be refunded forthwith upon proper identification; pending applications were also disposed of