Order This writ application has been filed praying therein a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in memo no. D-34/60/ChVIl dated 7.4.2005 (Annexure-13) whereby respondent no. 5 directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter no.B-III-502(T). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an Ex-Army personnel and is presently working as Postal Assistant, in the Post Office at Doranda, Ranchi, he was allotted with the quarter no. B-III502(T) by the Department and pursuant to order of allotment, the petitioner occupied the aforesaid quarter on 17.9.2004 and since then, he has been paying rent, electric charges, etc. While the petitioner was in occupation, respondent no. 1, Heavy Engineering Corporation got it notice issued in the newspaper for grant of Long Term Lease of the quarter on a consideration of the payment of the money stipulating therein and also deposit of earnest money. Thereafter the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 16,6001- under demand draft as earnest money, receipt of which was also granted to the petitioner but when nothing was done by the respondent in respect of settlement of the quarter under Long Term Lease, in spite of permission being granted by the Department to the petitioner and others for allotment of quarter under Long Term Lease, petitioner made several representations indicating therein that petitioner is always ready to deposit rest of the amount, i.e. Rs. 1,40,000/- for the allotment of the said quarter on Long Term Lease. In the meantime, respondent no. 5 directed the petitioner to shift in another quarter for which options were given for three quarters but when those quarters were not found suitable, the petitioner made them clear that he is not interested in occupying any of those quarters. Subsequently, respondent no. 5 without any rhyme and reason directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter, vide his letter dated 7.4.2005 (Annexure 13) which is under challenge. 3. The case of the respondents as has been made out in the counter affidavit is that the quarter in question was allotted by the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited not to the petitioner but to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ranchi for allotment to its employees for accommodation and not for the purpose of leasing it out to any individual employee of Postal Department and. therefore, the petitioner is never entitled to have the quarter settled in his favour under the policy of settlement of quarter under Long Term Lease. Still when the petitioner had applied for settlement of the Long Term Lease, the respondent asked for no objection certificate from the Postal Department but the Postal Department categorically intimated, vide its letter dated 19.8.2002 (Annexure-2 of the counter affidavit) therein that quarters have been allotted to the Postal Department, therefore, those quarters should not be allotted to any individual. In the meantime, one of the ex-employee applied for allotment of the said quarter under Long Term Lease and also deposited the full consideration money and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to vacate that quarter and option was also given to the petitioner to move to any other quarter of the 'B Type' which was allotted to the Postal Department. But the petitioner did not vacate the quarter and therefore, respondent made a request to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi for doing needful, who also asked the petitioner to vacate the quarter and to shift to any other quarter which is being provided by the Heavy Engineering Corporation but the petitioner did not vacate the quarter and therefore, suitable action was taken under the law for getting the petitioner evicted and even the order of eviction has been passed, still the petitioner is occupying the said quarter even though appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of eviction has been dismissed. 4. It be stated that Smt. Ghuna Devi on filing intervention petition was allowed to be added as respondent no. 6: Her stand is that her husband being ex-employee was allotted the quarter on application being made for settlement of quarter on Long Term Lease and on payment of entire money but still she on the death of her husband, being not allowed to have occupation of that quarter. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner being an employee of Postal Department was under in occupation of quarter no. BIII(T)-502, the respondent came out with an office order no. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner being an employee of Postal Department was under in occupation of quarter no. BIII(T)-502, the respondent came out with an office order no. 8 of 2000 dated 4.4.2000 under which employees, ex-employees, dependents of deceased employees and the employees of Co-operative sector and also employees of the Central and State Public Sector Undertaking and also others were offered with allotment of quarters on Long Term Lease and pursuant to that office order, petitioner did deposit Rs. 16,600/- as earnest money and even the Department allowed Heavy Engineering Corporation to settle the quarter in favour of the petitioner but the respondent never settled the quarter in terms of the office order, rather took step for eviction of the petitioner from the quarter and got the order of eviction passed which, in the facts and circumstances, is quite illegal as once the respondent had accepted the earnest money, he was under obligation to settle the quarter under Long Term Lease. 6. As against that, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and learned counsel appearing for the Intervener submit that the respondent was never under any obligation to settle the quarter in favour of the petitioner as the quarter had never been allotted to the petitioner, rather it had been allotted to the Postal Department and the Postal Department had raised objection in settling the quarter to any individual and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation under office order no. 8 of 2000 dated 4.4.2000 as contained in Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 on 26.2.2008 came out with an offer for allotment of quarter to the persons described under Clauses 3.1 to 3.5 which reads as under:- Eligibility This scheme shall cover the following categories or persons: 3.1 Serving employees. Ex-employees, Dependents of deceased employees and Dependents of deceased ex-employees of HEC for the quarters occupied by them on valid allotment. Ex-employees, Dependents of deceased employees and Dependents of deceased ex-employees of HEC for the quarters occupied by them on valid allotment. 3.2 Serving employees, Ex-employees, Dependents of deceased employees and Dependents of deceased Ex-employees of HEC for other notified quarters in order of preference and on seniority basis inter-se-seniority for ex-employees will be decided on the basis of their status on the date of release from the services of the Corporation. 3.3 Co-operative employees and contract labour engaged by contractors in connection with the work of HEC for DT & ST quarters in Temporary Colony on seniority/lottery basis at 5% more than the employee rate as mentioned in Column (3) of the table at clause 4.1. 3.4 Central and State Public Sector Undertakings, Registered Philanthropic/Charitable institutions for the quarters as notified for the purpose, at the commercial rates applicable 'for outsiders (Rates mentioned at column 4 of table at clause 4.1 below). 3.5 Individuals having authorized shops/land for shops allotted in HEC Township for surplus quarters by process of competitive bidding. Quarters still remaining surplus, to others, on the basis of competitive bidding. 8. On going through the clauses relating to the eligibilities about the persons who are entitled to have quarters on long term settlement, the petitioner an employee of the Postal Department never seems to be falling under any of the categories. However, there appears to be one clause under 3.5 stipulating therein that the quarters still remaining in surplus would be allotted to others on the basis of competitive bidding which is clearly indicative of the fact that said clause would be operative only when quarters after allotment to those persons who are eligible, left with surplus and that too settlement is to be made by bidding but that situation never seems to have come, still the petitioner is putting claim for settlement of the quarter on the basis of deposit of earnest money which claim is not tenable at all as this petitioner never falls within the eligibility clauses and in that event, any deposit of the earnest money will never give any right to the petitioner for its settlement. Moreover, the petitioner had never been allotted the quarter, rather it had been allotted under the pool of the Postal Department and the Postal Department had even intimated the respondent not to settle the quarters to any individual as those quarters are under the pool of Postal Department and thereupon the said quarter was allotted to husband of respondent no, 6 as respondent no. 6 being ex-employee had deposited the consideration money and thereupon the petitioner was given option by the respondent to shift in any other quarter so that the quarter which was in occupation of the petitioner may be given in occupation to respondent no. 6 but the petitioner retained the quarter and as such the quarter could not be given in occupation to the allottee. 9. Under this situation, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, this application is dismissed.