CWP No.8880 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 7.9.2010 Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent no.1 Mr.Sheenu Sura, Advocate for respondent no.2 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner applied for two kanals of plot in Sector 2, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula in response to the brochure issued by the HUDA. The reservation prescribed for various categories in respect of two kanals of plots in this brochure is as under:- CWP No.8880 of 2009 2 Sr.No. Category 2 Kanal/ 1 Kanal/ 14 marla/ 10 marla 6 Marla/ 4 Marla XX XX XX XX 7. Haryana Govt. servants including employees of Board/Corporation, Improvement Trust/State Co-op. Banks under Haryana Government. 10% 10% 8. a)Defence Personnel/Ex- servicemen b)Parliamentary forces like CRPF, BSF, domicile of Haryana State. 8% 2% 8% 2% 21 Plots of 2 kanals were advertised for allotment. The plots were to be allotted by draw of lots. The name of the petitioner was at Sr.No.18 in the draw of lots. HUDA allotted 17 plots out of 21 to the General Category and remaining four plots were allotted to reserved category i.e. the Haryana Government Servants including employees of Boards/Corporations etc., 10% Defence Category/Ex-Servicemen. The formulate adopted by the respondents is as under:- Total Plots (2 Kanal) 21 Plosts 10% of total plots (Defence Category) 2.1 plots 8% of 2.1 plots 1.68 plots i.e. rounded off to 2 plots. 2% of 2.1 plots. 0.42 i.e. rounded off to 0 plot. The grievance of the petitioner is that while rounding up 1.6 plots, one plot has to be allotted to the Defence personnel under 8%. In this CWP No.8880 of 2009 3 manner, the petitioner who belongs to General Category who is next in the merit at Sr.No.18 has been deprived of his right of allotment of plot.According to Mr. Puneet Bali, there should be no rounding up in order to grant benefit to any of the categories. The submission of the petitioner is that for Defence Category, against 2.1 plots only two plots have been allotted respresenting 8% quota and thus for 1.68 plots again two plots have been allotted. It is submitted that out of two plots against 1.68 plots, one should have been converted to General Category, the percentage being less than two. I have examined the formulate adopted by HUDA. The formula is based upon universally recognized norms. A perusal of the reply shows that with .5 figure, it is rounded up on the lower side and beyond 0.5, it is rounded up on the higher side. In the present case, 1.68 plots have been rounded off to 2 plots which seems to be rationally logical and resonable. The reserved category candidates have been allotted according to proportionate percentage. I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.9. 2010 MFK