H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an ex. Serviceman,having worked in the Indian Air force asa non-commissioned'officer in the rank ofcorporal and he retired from service on10-6-1969, after completion of meritoriousservice of about 15 years. Subsequentto his retirement he is now employed ina private concern at hubli with a meagresalary and pension. A notification wasissued by respohdent-2 on behalf of thekarnataka housing board inviting applicationsof intending purchasers for allotmentof houses built by the Karnataka housingboard, on lease-cum-sale basis, in respectof middle income group and low incomegroup schemes at nagasetty koppa,hubri. The petitioner is one of the appli' cants in the category of low incomedroup housing scheme, in which 14houses were available. After some timein april, 1977, the second respondentintimated the petitioner that his applicationhas been rejected and hence the petitioneris aggrieved. ( 2 ) THOUGH the petitioner was aggrieved,he did not proceed to challenge theorder of rejection. However, the petitionerchose to make a second application' inresponse to the notification published indeccan herald dated 4-3-1979. He hadapplied for middle income group house inlease-cum-sale as well as in outright salecategories. In the lease-cum-salecategory, 20 houses were notifed for allotmentof sites measuring 40' x 60' and in thecategory of outright sale, 6 houses werenotifed with sital measurement of 60' x40. The petitioner applied in accordancewith the notification making due depositsas required. This time also the petitionerwas disappointed, since his applicationwas rejected. Thereafter, the petitionermade representations to various authorities,but invain. Hence, the petitioner hasapproached this court for relief. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is thatthere is a special quota reserved fordefence personnel, including ex-servicemento the extent of 5%, as could be seenfrom' the Karnataka housing boardallotment regulations, 1983. The reservation is providedr for under regulation-4as well as regulstion-9. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to regulation-4 (1), theboard may on its own or under directionsfrom government reserve sites/houses inany area for allotment to any specifiedclass of persons and such class of personsmay consist of employees in any office orestablishment in the city, town or otherplaces in which the sites are formed/housesare constructed. There shall be reservedin each area where houses/sites arenotified, a discretionary quota up to 10% ineach category of houses/sites, subject toa maximum of ten, which may be disposedof by the board at its discretion, with theprior approval of the government. There shall be reservedin each area where houses/sites arenotified, a discretionary quota up to 10% ineach category of houses/sites, subject toa maximum of ten, which may be disposedof by the board at its discretion, with theprior approval of the government. ( 5 ) UNDER regulation 9, it is providedunder clause (b) that all applications forparticular category of houses/sites such ashigh income group, middle income group,low income group or economically weaker Section received for allotment of a house/site in each area shall be classified into the following categories: this includes a classification in respect of defence personnel/ex-serviceman. Similarly, it is provided under the same regulation that the notified houses/sites, after reserving the boards discretionary quota as specified in rule-4 (1) in each area for each category of house, shall be earmarked to the above categories as follows : (a) schedule caste, schedule tribe/backward tribe. . . . . 18% (b) defence personnel including ex-serviceman. . . . . 6% ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, it is crystal clear that barring the application of the petitioner, there was no other application from the category of defence personnel or ex-serviceman and the denial of the allotment is a violation of the regulations and therefore, the petitioner is ' entitled to a direction for allotment from this court. ( 7 ) THERE can be absolutely no doubt about the fact that the petitioner who. Belongs to the category of ex-serviceman, is entitled to consideration for allotment of a house by virtue of the special provision made under the regulations in reserving the special quota for the purpose of allotment of sites or houses to parsons belonging to ex-serviceman category. The fact that the petitioner belongs to the category of ex-serviceman is beyond dispute. No reason is given as to why the petitioner was 'denied allotment despite the fact that he is entitled to special reservation - under regulations and it appears to me that the impugned rejection of the application of the petitioner under Annexure-H is unjustified. Apart from the fact that the conduct of the authority is arbitrary, it has to be observed that the board cannot ignore its own regulation and particularly the reservation of sites end houses which are intended to be in the interest of certain classified categories, such as ex-serviceman. Apart from the fact that the conduct of the authority is arbitrary, it has to be observed that the board cannot ignore its own regulation and particularly the reservation of sites end houses which are intended to be in the interest of certain classified categories, such as ex-serviceman. Looking from any angle, i do not see apy justification whatsoever in the rejection of the application of the petitioner for allotment of a house under the middle incomegroup scheme. ( 8 ) IN view of the above facts, i pass the following ; ( 9 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The first and the second respondents are directed to allot one of the houses built by the second respondent under the middle income group category, either on lease-cum-sale basis or outright sale in keshavapura, hubll or in the alternative to allot any one of the houses out of the two houses declared as stray houses in the said group of houses at keshavapura, hubli or any other available houses expedltiously. Respondent No. 2 is directed to take prompt action in complying with the direction of this court within 60 days, from the date of the receipt of this order and the copy of this order shall be communicated forthwith to the second respondent. Shri Sateesh m, Doddamani, learned government pleader is permitted to file meme of appearance for the first respondent. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .