Judgment : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner seeks quashing and setting-aside of the office communications dated 05.01.2024 (annexure P-3) and 16.3.2024 (annexure P-6) whereby Set No.28 GF, Dispensary Block, Type-II, Barnus Court, Shimla was allotted in favour of respondent No.3. 2. The case Petitioner and respondent No.3 both are serving as Drivers in the H.P. Secretariat, Shimla. Petitioner is deployed with the Deputy Chief Whip of Himachal Pradesh, whereas respondent No.3 is deployed with Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. From the pleadings and submissions made for the parties, following factual position emerges:- 2(i). Petitioner is in possession of government accommodation Set No.161, Type -II, Block (T), Nabha Estate that was allotted to him on out of turn basis on 06.01.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that his aged mother had been battling cancer. The accommodation allotted to him was not on the road side. It also had stairs thereby making difficult for his mother to move and posed hindrance in her treatment. He, therefore, on 21.06.2023 made representation through proper channel for change of the accommodation. According to the respondents, the application so moved by the petitioner on 21.06.2023 was not on prescribed proforma. Further, this application of the petitioner for allotment of specific government accommodation by way of change had been moved too early as compared to the date of its availability as according to department instructions dated 16.04.2016, request for change of government residence with regard to a particular set could be considered only three months before the retirement of official in possession of the said accommodation. 2(ii). Petitioner thereafter, moved for change of government residential accommodation on 01.12.2023. This application was moved on prescribed proforma under Rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994 (‘Allotment Rules’ 1994 in short). Petitioner requested for allotment of Set No.28 GF, Dispensary Block, Barnus Court, Shimla. The aforesaid accommodation was in possession of one Sh. Vijay Shastri serving as Driver in H.P. Secretariat and due for superannuation in February, 2024. The petitioner requested for change in his residential accommodation by the aforesaid accommodation on its vacation by Sh. Vijay Shastri. Besides the petitioner, three other employees of the respondents i.e. S/Sh. Baldev Raj (Driver, H.P. Secretariat), Tek Ram Sharma (Jamadar, H.P. Secretariat) and Mohd. Rafi (Sr. The petitioner requested for change in his residential accommodation by the aforesaid accommodation on its vacation by Sh. Vijay Shastri. Besides the petitioner, three other employees of the respondents i.e. S/Sh. Baldev Raj (Driver, H.P. Secretariat), Tek Ram Sharma (Jamadar, H.P. Secretariat) and Mohd. Rafi (Sr. Assistant, H.P. Secretariat) had also applied for change in their allotted government accommodation and inter-alia for allotment of Set No.28 GF. Sh. Baldev Raj had requested for out of turn allotment citing his present accommodation being small. Sh. Tek Ram had requested for out of turn allotment on the ground of accommodation allotted to him being not suitable. Sh. Mohd. Rafi had requested for out of turn allotment on the ground of his being a kidney transplant patient and applied for the accommodation being more suitable to him. These representations preferred by four employees including the petitioner were deliberated upon by the respondent No.2- the Director of Estates to Government of Himachal Pradesh and forwarded to respondent No.1- Principal Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 16.01.2024. 2(iii). While the applications of the petitioner and three others were being processed, in a parallel move, an office letter was issued on 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) by the office of Principal Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to respondent No.2 conveying the approval of government to allot government accommodation, i.e. Set No.28 GF, Type II in favour of respondent No.3 on out of turn basis under Rule 8(7) of the Allotment Rules, 1994. 2(iv). On 17.02.2024, the respondents re-categorized the accommodation in question, i.e. Set No.28 GF, Dispensary Block, Type-II, Barnus Court, Shimla as Type-III, General Pool Accommodation since the area of the said house statedly fell under category of Type-III house. On account of re-categorization of Set No.28 GF from Type-II to Type-III, the respondents deliberated over the matter as to whether the allotment of the accommodation in question in favour of respondent No.3 was required to be cancelled/withdrawn as he was entitled to Type-II accommodation whereas the set had been re-categorized as Type-III. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 14.03.2024 decided:- “Re-categorization letter has come after we have allotted the house and therefore, we may go with the allotment made. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 14.03.2024 decided:- “Re-categorization letter has come after we have allotted the house and therefore, we may go with the allotment made. In our records it may be re-categorized as type-III for future allotment.” In view of above, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 16.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) affirmed the allotment of Set No.28 GF in favour of respondent No.3. 2(v). Feeling aggrieved against allotment of the accommodation in question to respondent No.3, the petitioner instituted this writ petition on 12.06.2024 seeking following substantive reliefs:- “i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned allotment dated 05.01.2024 and 16.03.2024 as contained in Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-6, respectively. ii) That writ in the nature of Mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to allot set No.28 GF, Dispensary Block, Type-II. Barnus Court in favour of the petitioner being applicant at prior point of time.” Pursuant to an assurance extended in this writ petition for the State of Himachal Pradesh, possession of accommodation in question has not been handed over to respondent No.3. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply have defended the allotment of accommodation in question to respondent No.3. Their main stand is that government accommodation in question was allotted by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 under Rule 8(7) of Allotment Rules, 1994 after following due process and procedure prescribed for out of turn allotment in view of exigency of service. Learned Advocate General during course of hearing submitted that respondents have the discretion to allot any accommodation on out of turn basis in exigency of service in terms of the Allotment Rules 1994; It is in exercise of said power that accommodation in question had been allotted to respondent No.3. It was also submitted that such exercise of power cannot be questioned under judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It was further submitted that petitioner was already in possession of a government accommodation. He had only desired a change in the allotted accommodation whereas the respondent No.3 had been residing in a rented accommodation. The accommodation in question therefore was justly allotted to respondent No.3. The petitioner did not have any vested right for a particular accommodation. It was further submitted that petitioner was already in possession of a government accommodation. He had only desired a change in the allotted accommodation whereas the respondent No.3 had been residing in a rented accommodation. The accommodation in question therefore was justly allotted to respondent No.3. The petitioner did not have any vested right for a particular accommodation. In support of the submissions, reliance was placed upon Madhu Kashyap versus State of H.P.[CWP No.8027 of 2022, decided on 10.03.2023] Respondent No.3 has filed his separate reply justifying the allotment of Set No.28 GF in his favour projecting adjerence to due process and procedure in allotting him the government accommodation and also on the count that the petitioner was only seeking better accommodation by way of change whereas respondent No.3 was not in occupation of any government accommodation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the respondent-State, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and also considered the case file as well as record of the case produced by the respondents. 4(i). Petitioner had been allotted government accommodation i.e. Set No.161, Type-II, Block No.5, Nabha Estate on out of turn basis in view of exigency of his service. It is an admitted position that petitioner had applied for change of the said accommodation for allotting him Set No.28 GF on its vacation by Sh. Vijay Shastri who was occupying the aforesaid accommodation and was due to superannuate in February, 2024. Respondent No.2- the Director, Estates Himachal Praedesh had tabulated the applications of employees received by him as on 16.01.2024 requesting for change of allotted government accommodation by the aforesaid accommodation (Annexure A-2). Name of petitioner figures in the said tabulation alongside names of three other employees. Admittedly, respondent No.3 had not made any application or representation for allotment of any government accommodation to respondent No.2. Name of respondent No.3 does not even figure in the aforementioned tabulation. 4(ii). The record produced by the respondents reveals that it was on 05.01.2024 that certificate of exigency of services was issued in favour of respondent No.3 by Sh. Ritesh Keprate, Officer onSpecial Duty (OSD) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for being considered for allotment of suitable Type-II accommodation on out of turn basis. The said certificate is as under:- “CERTIFICATE OF EXIGENCY OF SERVICES “Shri Mohinder Lal presently posted as Driver Olo OSD to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, H.P. Sectt., Shimla. Ritesh Keprate, Officer onSpecial Duty (OSD) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for being considered for allotment of suitable Type-II accommodation on out of turn basis. The said certificate is as under:- “CERTIFICATE OF EXIGENCY OF SERVICES “Shri Mohinder Lal presently posted as Driver Olo OSD to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, H.P. Sectt., Shimla. He has to attend the office in odd hours and even during holidays and as such facing difficulties to perform duties. Keeping in view of exigencies of services, he may kindly be considered for allotment of suitable Type-II accommodation nearby on out of turn basis. Dated: 5/1/2024 Sd/- (Ritesh Keprate) OSD to the Hon’ble Chief Minister HP Secretariat, Shimla-171002 Phone No.0177-2623620.” The same day i.e. 5.1.2024, respondent No.3 moved an application on prescribed proforma for out of turn allotment. The application made on 05.01.2024 was addressed to the Director of Estates Himachal Pradesh (respondent No.2). However, as the contents of office letter dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Director of Estates reveal the said application moved by respondent No.3 was not with him (respondent No.2) at least till 16.01.2024 yet the application of respondent No.3 dated 05.01.2024 was somehow processed the same day i.e. 05.01.2024 as under:- In view of the last note “issue as per direction of HCM”, allotment letter for Set No.28 GF was issued to respondent No.3 on 05.01.2024 itself by the Principal Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh ( Annexure P-3) as under:- “From To The Pr. Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The Director of Estate, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2 Dated: Shimla-2, the 5th Jan., 2024 Subject:- Regarding allotment of Government accommodation. Sir, I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to convey the approval of Government to allot Government accommodation i.e. Set No. 28 GF, Dispensary Block Type- II, Barnus Court (on vacation) in favour of Sh. Mohinder. Lal, Driver O/o OSD to Hon'ble Chief Minister, H.P. Secretariat, Shimla on out of turn basis under rule 8(7) of H.P. allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994. You are, therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly under intimation to this Department. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Parveen Kumar Taak) Joint Secretary (GAD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Ph. No. 0177-2622686” 4(iii). You are, therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly under intimation to this Department. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Parveen Kumar Taak) Joint Secretary (GAD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Ph. No. 0177-2622686” 4(iii). From the above sequence, it is quite evident that the respondents had proceeded in hot haste in their zeal to allot the accommodation in question to respondent No.3. The said accommodation was desired by the petitioner as also some other employees. These applications including that of petitioner were still being deliberated by the competent authority. Before the deliberation on the representations/applications could be concluded, respondent No.3 on 05.01.2024 applied for the allotment of the aforesaid Type-II government accommodation; The same day his file was processed and the same day in view of the note “issue as per direction of Hon’ble the Chief Minister”, the accommodation in question was allotted to respondent No.3. The specific accommodation was allotted to respondent No.3 the day he applied for the same, without even considering similar request of others including that of petitioner who had made applications much prior in time for change in their allotted accommodation by the accommodation in question. No explanation for this has been furnished by the respondents. 4(iv). Learned Additional Advocate General placed strong reliance upon exercise of powers under Rule 8(7) of the Allotment Rules, 1994 for defending the allotment of accommodation in question in favour of respondent No.3 in purported exercise of power to allot on out of turn basis. Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules, 1994 provides for ‘allotment of residence to an applicant desiring change of the accommodation in that type in genuine cases under the provisions of Rule 13 and also provides for allotment to an applicant without accommodation in that type of residence having earliest date of priority for that type of residence’. The rule reads as under :- “7. Allotment of residence.-- (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a residence, falling vacant, may be allotted by the Secretary (GAD) to the Govt. The rule reads as under :- “7. Allotment of residence.-- (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a residence, falling vacant, may be allotted by the Secretary (GAD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh to an applicant desiring a change of accommodation in that type in genuine cases under the provisions of rule 13 or to an applicant without accommodation in that type of residence having the earliest date of priority for that type of residence, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) the Secretary shall not allot a residence of a type higher than to what the applicant is eligible under rule-5; (ii) the Secretary shall not compel any applicant to accept a residence of a lower type than to what he is eligible under rule 5; and (iii) the Secretary, on request from an applicant for allotment of a lower category residence may allot to him a residence of one type below for which the applicant is eligible under rule 5 on the basis of his priority date for the same" (30-8-2011) (2) The Director may cancel the existing allotment of an officer/official and allot to him an alternative residence of the same type or in emergent circumstances an alternative residence of type next below the type of residence in occupation of the officer/official if the residence in occupation of the officer is required to be vacated in public interest. (3) A vacant residence may, in addition to allotment to an officer/official under sub-rule (1), be offered simultaneously to other eligible officers/officials in the order of their priority dates. (4) The contract employees recruited through the prescribed recruiting agency may be considered for allotment of Government accommodation alongwith regular Government employees subject to the following terms and conditions:- -----(26-4-2012) (i) A contract employee, by virtue of corresponding post being held by him/her, shall be eligible for allotment of that type of Government accommodation for which a regular employee is entitled while posted initially on the same post which is being held by the contract employee, on payment of normal license fee; and (ii) The Priority for allotment of Government accommodation to the contract employees, irrespective of the type of accommodation, shall be the date of joining in the service under the State Government but, shall be placed below the regular employees in that category/type (26-4-2012).” Petitioner had applied for change in allotted government accommodation. Admittedly, respondents had not considered petitioner’s application for change in the accommodation. It was not deliberated upon as to whether the change sought by the petitioner was genuine or not. It is also not the case of the respondents that respondent No.3 had any priority in matter of allotment on the basis of his seniority as he had admittedly not applied prior to the petitioner and three others. Portion of Rule 8(7) of the Allotment Rules, 1994 relied upon by the respondents in defence of the allotment of the government accommodation in question in favour of respondent No.3 reads as under:- “8. Adhoc allotment on out of turn basis. -Notwithstanding the provisions of rule-7, adhoc allotment on out of turn basis may be made by the House Allotment Committee to an officer/official on the following grounds:- (1) to (6) ……………….. (7) Where exigencies of services so warrant ----- (30.08.2011).” Rule 8 starts with non-obsante clause that notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 7, ad-hoc allotment on out of turn basis can be made by the House Allotment Committee in favour of an official on the grounds mentioned in sub-rules. The sub-rule 7 pressed into service by the respondents provides for out of turn allotment “where exigencies of service so warrant”. The power to make allotment on out of turn basis under Rule 8(7) in exigency of services is vested in the House Allotment Committee. In the instant case, the respondent No.3 had applied only on 05.01.2024 for allotment of accommodation on out of turn basis. His application was allowed by the Principal Secretary (GAD) the same day purportedly in view of ‘directions issued by Hon'ble Chief Minister’. Respondent No.3's application was not considered by the House Allotment Committee at the time of allotment of the house in question in his favour on 05.01.2024. It is well settled position of law when rules prescribe doing something in a particular manner, it is required to be done in that manner alone. Respondent No.3's application was not considered by the House Allotment Committee at the time of allotment of the house in question in his favour on 05.01.2024. It is well settled position of law when rules prescribe doing something in a particular manner, it is required to be done in that manner alone. In the instant case, after the house was allotted to respondent No.3 on 05.01.2024 on out of turn basis by the Principal Secretary (GAD), the matter was placed before the House Allotment Committee on 04.07.2024, when under item No.2 ex-post facto approval was granted by the Committee to the allotments made during which the period w.e.f. 30.11.2023 to 29.06.2024 i.e. covering the period during which allotment in question was made in faovur of respondent No.3. Rule 8 envisages making allotment on out of turn basis but the procedure prescribed therein for making out of turn allotment was not followed by the respondents while allotting the house in question to respondent No.3. Under the Rules, out of turn allotment can be made by the House Allotment Committee and not by the Principal Secretary (GAD). 4(v). Reliance placed by the respondents upon Madhu Kashyap2 for defending the allotment of house in question in favour of respondent No.3 is misplaced. Madhu Kashyap had requested for change in the allotment claiming preferential right of allotment against those who had applied for accommodation for the first time. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that Allotment Rules, 1994 do not envisage any preferential right of allotment in favour of the petitioner therein for change of accommodation as against those who had applied for accommodation the first time. The Division Bench also noticed that petitioner therein had even failed to occupy the accommodation allotted to her. Madhu Kashyap2 has no bearing to the facts of the instant case. Petitioner herein has not claimed any preferential right to change of allotted government accommodation. His case is of discrimination meted out to his application vis-a-vis that of respondent No.3 for allotment of government accommodation in question and the manner in which application of respondent No.3 was processed and the aforesaid accommodation was allotted to respondent No.3. Petitioner herein has not claimed any preferential right to change of allotted government accommodation. His case is of discrimination meted out to his application vis-a-vis that of respondent No.3 for allotment of government accommodation in question and the manner in which application of respondent No.3 was processed and the aforesaid accommodation was allotted to respondent No.3. 4(vi) Here, it would be pertinent to take note of Sumit Sharma versus State of H.P.[CWP No.7597/2021 decided on 28.07.2022.] In the said case also, the petitioner therein serving as Driver in this Court had requested for change in the accommodation allotted to him. Instead of considering his application for change in the accommodation, the house in question had been allotted to respondent No.3 therein who was serving as Driver of the Additional Chief Secretary, State of Himachal Pradesh. A contention was raised by the State that respondent No.3’s (therein) was a case of fresh allotment, whereas the petitioner had only desired change in the accommodation. The Court held as under:- “11. Lastly, it is contended that since the petitioner was already residing in Set No.54, Type-II, Block H from 31.5.2020, whereas respondent No.3 was fresh allottee and without a government accommodation, therefore, he was allotted accommodation in question taking into consideration the profile of his work and exigencies of duties. 14. It is rather unfortunate, as observed above, that the official respondents, despite knowing fully-well their action to be in contravention of the provisions of the Rules, which provide for change of accommodation on the basis of first come first serve, have tried to justify their action by stating that since the petitioner was already in occupation of government accommodation, therefore, the accommodation in question was granted to respondent No.3.” The Court also held that Allotment Rules, 1994 did not debar the right of consideration of the petitioner therein for change of accommodation merely on the ground of his being already in possession of government accommodation. The portion of the judgment relevant to the context reads as under:- “15. What is still worse is that the official-respondents tried to justify the grant of accommodation in favour of respondent No.3 on the basis of exigencies of his service. 16. Firstly, there is no provision in the entire rules, which may debar the right of consideration of petitioner for change of accommodation on the ground that he is already in possession of government accommodation. 16. Firstly, there is no provision in the entire rules, which may debar the right of consideration of petitioner for change of accommodation on the ground that he is already in possession of government accommodation. That apart, we really fail to understand how respondent No.3, who, like the petitioner is working as a driver in H.P. Secretariat, is performing more arduous task or duties than the petitioner.” The Court also noticed that allotment in favour of respondent No.3 therein had been made only on the basis of D.O note issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The portion relevant to the context reads as under :- “17. As stated above, the allotment in favour of respondent No.3 was made on the basis of D.O. note, (Annexure R-4) issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Fts. & Ayur) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which was addressed to the Chief Secretary, and a note dated 24.8.2021 appears on the left side of this D.O. note which states “pl. do it”, which was marked to Secretary (GAD). 18. This fact has otherwise not been denied during the course of the arguments, meaning thereby that the then Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has left little or rather no scope for any discretion or decision for the competent authority i.e. Secretary (GAD).” The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the respondents- State did not have any extra-constitutional powers for directing allotment of specific accommodation to respondent No.3. Exercise of such extra-constitutional power does not auger well either with the system much less with the Court. That such exercise was improper, grossly irregular and illegal; That power vested by the State in public authority should be viewed as trust coupled with its exercise in larger public and social interest, the power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and in relation to facts of the case:- “19. Additionally, we are at complete loss to appreciate as to how and on what basis, the then Additional Chief Secretary (Fts. & Ayur) claimed the premises which were otherwise allotted to respondent No.3 to be in dilapidated condition (refer D.O. Note at Annexure R-4) and how he/ she could have directed the allotment of a specific accommodation i.e. Set No. 156 to respondent No.3. & Ayur) claimed the premises which were otherwise allotted to respondent No.3 to be in dilapidated condition (refer D.O. Note at Annexure R-4) and how he/ she could have directed the allotment of a specific accommodation i.e. Set No. 156 to respondent No.3. Exercise of such extra constitutional power does not auger well either with the system much less with the Court. 20. Despite all this, the official-respondents would have this Court believe that everything was hunky-dory, whereas there has been impropriety, gross irregularity and illegality in the allotment of the accommodation in favour of respondent No.3. 21. It is more than settled that power vested by the State in a public authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact-situation of a case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them". A decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An Authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other. (Refer: Noida entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida & ors. 2011) 6 SCC 508” The Hon'ble Division Bench placing reliance on Shiv Sagar Tiwari versus Union of India 1997(1) SCC 444 , re-iterated that there is no discretion or unfettered discretion in the matter concerning allotment of government accommodation and that law is above all:- “32. Now adverting to the another facet of the case, The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India & ors. (1997) 1 SCC 444 , has held that even the Minister, if he/she be the repository of discretionary power, cannot claim that either there is no discretion or unfettered discretion in the matters regarding allotment of government accommodation. 33. (1997) 1 SCC 444 , has held that even the Minister, if he/she be the repository of discretionary power, cannot claim that either there is no discretion or unfettered discretion in the matters regarding allotment of government accommodation. 33. The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all Government agencies, entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law, reproducing the words of Thomas Fuller: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you". 34. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. 35. Issuance of D.O. note at the instance of aforesaid Additional Chief Secretary is clearly in violation of the Rules as also law laid down in Shiv Sagar Tiwari’s case (supra). 45. The entire scenario shocks the conscious of this Court to come across such a systematic fraud committed by those who are at the helm of these affairs. The allotment of accommodation, as observed above, had to be in accordance with the Rules, that too, in a fair and transparent manner without indulging in any favourtism or nepotism. 46. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have failed to take into consideration that discretion can only be exercised if there is a power to do so and the same otherwise cannot be contrary to law. The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of rule of law upon which whole constitutional edifice is based. In a system governed by law, discretion when conferred upon an executive authority must be confined within clearly defined limits. If the discretion is exercised without any principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the antithesis of rule of law. In a system governed by law, discretion when conferred upon an executive authority must be confined within clearly defined limits. If the discretion is exercised without any principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the antithesis of rule of law. Discretion means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known principles of rules, not by whim or fancy or caprice of the authority. 50. Unfortunately, this is not a solitary case, where the official- respondents have been found to be openly and shamelessly violating the Rules. There have been many occasions, where this Court has been constrained to even suspend the powers of the government in the matter of allotment of accommodation only because there were large scale of bungling and irregularities in the same and it is nothing short of a “scam”. The writ petition was allowed as under:- “52. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we find merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly allowed and the respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to vacate the accommodation of respondent No.3 on or before 2.8.2022 at 10.00 A.M. by handing over the vacant and peaceful possession to respondent No.2, who, thereafter shall ensure that the accommodation in question is fully habitable with proper electricity and water connection and hand over the same to the petitioner latest by 16.8.2022. 53. For compliance, to come up on 18.8.2022. 54. The official-respondents are directed to ensure that henceforth there is a fair and transparent procedure adopted by them in matters of allotment of accommodation which shall be strictly in conformity and compliance of the H.P. Allotment of Government Residential (General Pool) Rules, 1994. 55. The details of application as per “first come first serve” and other details shall, along with the order(s) of allotment made from time to time, be uploaded on the official website within 24 hours of the order(s) of allotment.” The ratio of above decision is applicable to the facts of the instant case as well. 4(vii) Petitioner a Driver in the H.P. Govt. Secretariat had applied on the prescribed proforma on 01.12.2023 for change of government accommodation allotted to him by the accommodation in question giving reasons in support of such request. 4(vii) Petitioner a Driver in the H.P. Govt. Secretariat had applied on the prescribed proforma on 01.12.2023 for change of government accommodation allotted to him by the accommodation in question giving reasons in support of such request. His application moved to the Competent Authority-respondent No.2 (Director of Estates Himachal Pradesh) was being deliberated upon as the accommodation in question was to become available in February, 2024 on the retirement of its existing occupant. On 05.01.2024, out of nowhere respondent No.3, a Driver in the H.P. Secretariat attached with OSD to the Hon’ble Chief Minister applied for the first time for allotment of the same specific accommodation. The application was though moved to respondent No.2, yet it was allowed the same day by respondent No.1. No such power to allot the accommodation vested in respondent No.1 under the Allotment Rules, 1994. Under the Rules, power to allot the government accommodation (General Pool) on out of turn basis vests in the House Allotment Committee. In the instant case, merely on the basis of note “issue as per directions of HCM”, the accommodation in question was allotted to respondent No.3. Not even resemblance of law or procedure much less due adherence to the same was thought about by the respondents before illegally and arbitrarily allotting the house in question to respondent No.3 without deliberately long pending applications of petitioner and others for the same accommodation. No absolute discretion lies with the respondents-State to allot government accommodation on out of turn basis without complying with the Rules occupying the field. The Rules holding the field are not meant to be applied discriminatively and selectively in few cases but are for universal application. In Sumit Kumar3, the respondents- State of Himachal Pradesh was categorically directed to adopt a fair, transparent procedure for allotment of government accommodation in compliance to the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994. The details of applications as per ‘first come first serve’ and other details alongwith orders of allotment made from time to time were also to be uploaded on the website. While allotting the accommodation in question to respondent No.3, neither the Rules have been adhered to nor the law laid down, the observation made and the general directions issued in Sumit Kumar3 were thought fit enough by the respondents- State even to be pondered over. While allotting the accommodation in question to respondent No.3, neither the Rules have been adhered to nor the law laid down, the observation made and the general directions issued in Sumit Kumar3 were thought fit enough by the respondents- State even to be pondered over. The allotment of house to respondent No.3, made solely on the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice, the constitutional mandate of equality as well as H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994 and the decision in Sumit Kumar. The petitioner had applied for the same house prior to respondent No.3, yet his claim was disregarded without any rational basis. Allotment of government accommodation is governed by the provisions of the Allotment Rules, 1994, which lay down the procedure and criteria for such allotments. Learned Advocate General submitted that the matter falls within the executive’s discretionary domain and therefore lies beyond the scope of judicial interference. Even assuming for arguments’ sake that the rules confer a measure of discretion upon the authority, such discretion cannot be exercised in violation of the principles of natural justice, fairness and the procedure encompassed in the Rules. Discretionary power is never unfettered; it must operate within the framework of law, guided by transparency, equity, and reasonableness. The rule of law forms the touchstone of constitutional governance, signifying that all actions-legislative, executive or administrative must conform to legal and procedural propriety. When discretion is detached from fairness and legality, it degenerates into arbitrariness, a concept which Constitution does not tolerate. The supremacy of law ensures that no authority, howsoever high is exempt from accountability. Every public functionary, howsoever high he may be, is bound by law and must act within its confines. The very essence of the rule of law lies in the doctrine that law stands above individuals, offices and institutions, guaranteeing equality and justice through adherence to reason, fairness and due process. 5. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned allotment letters dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) & 16.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) are quashed & set- aside. 5. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned allotment letters dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) & 16.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) are quashed & set- aside. Respondents/ Competent Authority are directed to consider the applications for allotment/ change of allotment moved by respondent No.3 & the petitioner in accordance with law, prescribed procedure, applicable H.P. Government Residences (General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1994, the decision in Sumit Kumar and also keeping in view the observations made heretobefore, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Respondent No.1 is also directed to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- in the Chief Justice50,000/- in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund, 2025 within the aforesaid period. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.