JUDGMENT : 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this Court to quash the vacation notice under No.A.II-3/2017-GCA-Bldg(Q/A) dated 03.11.2017(Annexure-4 to this writ petition). It has been also urged by this writ petition to allow the petitioner continue in the said accommodation as referred in the said vacation notice dated 03.11.2017 and to charge usual rent on the petitioner. As corollary, a further relief for staying the said vacation notice dated 03.11.2017(Annexure-4 to this writ petition) has been prayed. 2. The indispensible facts which are relevant and laid in this writ petition are that the petitioner and her husband, both are working in the Central Reserve Police Force(CRPF in short), respectively as the Head Constable and the Assistant Sub-Inspector(GD). The petitioner is posted presently at 20th Bn., Diphu, Assam. When the petitioner and her husband were posted at Agartala, initially they were staying in a rented accommodation but later on, on the prayer of the petitioner an official residence(the quarters) was allotted in her favour in the year 2010. The petitioner has averred that the petitioner and her husband are now staying in their respective barracks. Since the petitioner’s children were continuing their educational pursuits at Agartala they did not apply any official residence in their place of posting. But by the said notice dated 03.11.2017(Annexure-4), the petitioner was asked to vacate the occupied family quarters, failing which it was cautioned that the rent would be levied on the petitioner at Rs.12,400/- for possessing the TypeII quarters beyond the entitled tenure. The petitioner made a representation to reconsider the direction as reflected in the vacation notice dated 03.11.2017(Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The petitioner has further averred that the daughter of the petitioner, namely Tusmi Debnath had completed the Secondary examination in 2017 and the petitioner’s son, namely Tuhin Kumar Debnath had appeared in the examination but could not succeed in the Higher Secondary(+2 Stage) Examination, 2017. As a result, he has been preparing for appearing in the next turn. 3. The respondents have filed their response on 08.02.2018 to contend that the petitioner was allotted Government family quarters No.28 of Type-II/Pocket ‘A’(the entitled category) by the office order dated 14.12.2010 as per the application made by the petitioner on 03.08.2010. Those accommodations were constructed during the period from 2006 to 2010. 3. The respondents have filed their response on 08.02.2018 to contend that the petitioner was allotted Government family quarters No.28 of Type-II/Pocket ‘A’(the entitled category) by the office order dated 14.12.2010 as per the application made by the petitioner on 03.08.2010. Those accommodations were constructed during the period from 2006 to 2010. The respondents have referred Supplementary Rule 317-B-4(1) from Swamy’s Compilations of FR SR, Part-I which provides that no officer shall be allotted a residence under these rules if the wife or the husband, as the case may be, of the officer has already been allotted a residence unless such residence is surrendered. In this case, the petitioner had occupied the government family quarters No.28 Type-II/Pocket ‘A’ i.e., the entitled category in the Group Centre, Agartala. Therefore, there is no question of any allotment of any other government quarters at any place of posting either in her favour or in favour of her husband. Only after surrendering the said quarters, the question might arise for allotment of the entitled quarters. 4. There is no dispute that the original retention period has expired on 31.03.2017 but the petitioner did not vacate the allotted government quarters. On 11.09.2017 i.e. after lapse of more than five months, the petitioner submitted an application requesting for further retention of the government quarters for a period of one year on the similar ground for purpose of education of her children. The request of the petitioner has not been considered during HMC meeting held on 27.10.2017, in view of the waiting list for allotment of family accommodation to needy personnel who have reported from LWE, NE, J&K area to G.C., CRPF, Agartala, from its affiliated units in addition to Range, Agartala, TPA Sector, 140 Bn. and D/3 Signal platoon, etc. The petitioner was also intimated through the Unit Commandant, 232(M) Bn. CRPF and was directed to vacate the allotted government quarters within one month vide the office order No.A.II-3/2017GCABldg(Q/A) dated 03.10.2017. Subsequently, the vacation notice was issued on 03.11.2017 directing to vacate the allotted government quarters within one month from the date of issue of the notice. In the said order, the default clause for market rent recovery was also incorporated. CRPF and was directed to vacate the allotted government quarters within one month vide the office order No.A.II-3/2017GCABldg(Q/A) dated 03.10.2017. Subsequently, the vacation notice was issued on 03.11.2017 directing to vacate the allotted government quarters within one month from the date of issue of the notice. In the said order, the default clause for market rent recovery was also incorporated. It was clearly mentioned that if she fails to vacate the allotted quarters, the market rent recovery at Rs.12,400/per month for TypeII quarters shall proceed from the pay and allowances of the petitioner being an unauthorized occupant as per the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Despite such notice, the petitioner did not vacate the said government quarters. Thus, the order of recovery of rent at Rs.12,400/w.e.f. 01.12.2017 has been issued by declaring that the government quarters No.28 of Type-II/Pocket ‘A’ is unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner vide G.C. Agartala office order No.A.II-3/2017GCA(Q/A) dated 08.12.2017. Further, the respondents have submitted that since the contention of the petitioner is not legally tenable inasmuch as no law authorizes the competent authority to extend such license to use, and as such according to the respondents, the court may not interfere in the matter. 5. Then, having referred to supplementary Rule 317-B-4 of FRSR(Part-I) it has been stated that no officer shall be allotted a residence under these rules, if the wife or the husband, as the case may be, of the officer has already been allotted a residence unless such residence is surrendered. 6. In this case, the petitioner has been occupying the said family quarters even after their transfer from Agartala. The retention period as stated had expired on 31.03.2017. As the petitioner did not vacate the said family quarters, the impugned notice dated 03.11.2017 has been issued. However, prior to the said notice on 11.09.2017, on lapse of more than five months, the petitioner had requested for further retention of the government quarters for a period of one year on the ground of education of her children. The request was duly considered but it was not acceded to as in the meeting held on 27.10.2017 it has been observed that there is a long waiting list for allotment of the needy personnel. Accordingly, the petitioner was intimated the outcome of her prayer for retention of the family quarters for one year. The request was duly considered but it was not acceded to as in the meeting held on 27.10.2017 it has been observed that there is a long waiting list for allotment of the needy personnel. Accordingly, the petitioner was intimated the outcome of her prayer for retention of the family quarters for one year. The petitioner was further directed to vacate the allotted quarters within a month by the order dated 30.10.2017 and subsequently, as stated, the said vacation notice dated 03.11.2017 was issued. 7. In the vacation notice, it has been clearly stated that if the allotted quarters is not vacated within the stipulated date i.e. within one month from the date of the issue of the said notice, the petitioner will be charged with Rs.12,400/per month for Type-II i.e. the family quarters and the said amount shall be deducted from her pay and allowances being an unauthorized occupant as per the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Despite the said notice dated 03.11.2017, the petitioner did not vacate the quarters and as such by the office order dated 08.12.2017(Annexure-R3 to the reply filed by the respondents) the recovery of rent at the rate of Rs.12,400/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2017 has been directed. 8. The petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the public premise and she had made herself liable to be proceeded against in terms of the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to vacate the said premises. The respondents have further stated that there is no provision that if one of the spouses working under the same organization he or she would be entitled to the accommodation on surrender of the HRA. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and therefore the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fervently submitted that the Director General, CRPF has issued a general guidelines for allotment and occupation of family quarters in Central Reserve Police Force under No. 2015(No.A.II-1/2015-Adm-1-DA-IV dated 30.11.2015. In the said guidelines, it has been provided that if quarters are vacant, it can be allotted to personnel from the other units/GCs/officers(non-entitled category), especially on the ground of medical treatment/education. Separate waiting list will be maintained for those personnel. Mr. In the said guidelines, it has been provided that if quarters are vacant, it can be allotted to personnel from the other units/GCs/officers(non-entitled category), especially on the ground of medical treatment/education. Separate waiting list will be maintained for those personnel. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted further that in the said guidelines, in clause 16 it has been provided as under: “16. After the expiry of the prescribed period, the allottee shall be required to vacate the quarter subject to exemption laid down below unless decided otherwise by the HMC for reasons to be recorded in writing. (i) Family members suffering from chronic diseases Till the duration of treatment and certified by the Medical Officer that the patient is capable of undertaking journey to other station. (ii) Family members required to be operated upon or recently operated Till the duration of treatment and certified by the Medical Officer that the patient is capable to undertaking journey to other station. (iii) Delivery Cases May be given extension if the expected date of delivery is less than three months on the date of completion of the normal prescribed period till the new 10. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has highlighted, for purpose of emphasis, the clause 16(iv) where it has been provided that till the closing of the current academic session, the allottee may be exempted by recording the reasons as provided in terms of the clause 16 of the said guidelines. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has contended that since the petitioner’s children are now undergoing the academic session, the respondents may not direct the vacation of the said quarters. Even though, the petitioner now falls under the non-entitled category in view of the conditions and general rules(C), the petitioner may get the extension of the retention period till the academic session of the children’s education is over. 11. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further referred to the clause 27 which is related to the educational prospects of the wards of the force personnel and other peculiar family problems being faced by them. The said clause provides that the initial period of allotment of the CRPF quarters will be of 03 years, extendable up to 05 years by GCOs and 07 years by Sector IsG and beyond it by ADG/SDG in extreme special circumstances. The said clause provides that the initial period of allotment of the CRPF quarters will be of 03 years, extendable up to 05 years by GCOs and 07 years by Sector IsG and beyond it by ADG/SDG in extreme special circumstances. The said clause 27 further provides: (a) In case of extension due to posting in eligible zone i.e. J&K/LWE/NE region it will be extendable till posting in eligible area subject to following condition as specified in MHA OM dated 18/02/2002: (i) Retention shall be purely on merit. (ii) Case of retention shall be restricted to 25% of the available quarter in each category. (b) Retention of family quarters on transfer to J&K, LWE and NE Region is permitted at Group Centre location only. (c) Retention of family quarters on transfer to J&K, LWE and NE Region is not permitted at training institution/unattached & signal Bns. (d) Minimum period of allotment for non-entitled category will be one academic session. In case there is no claimant of entitled category the maximum period of allotment to non entitled category can be extended to 03 years(03 academic sessions). 12. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has passionately submitted that the daughter of the petitioner passed the Madhyamik examination in 2017 and as such the academic session will come to an end in March, 2019. As such, the petitioner is entitled to get the extension of the retention period till then. If such a retention is granted, the son of the petitioner can appear in the H.S.(+2 stage) examination without any dislocation. The petitioner has not given any description of the vacant quarters in this writ petition. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended further that if the quarters are lying vacant, then such quarters may be allotted on the ground of education. But as we have noticed that the respondents have taken a definite stand that lot of personnel are in the waiting list to have a quarters who are posted at Agartala. It may not be case of vacant quarters left without allotment. Be that as it may, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that till the closing of the current academic session of the daughter of the petitioner the retention period in terms of the clause 16(iv) of the said general guidelines may be given by way of exempting the rule. Mr. Be that as it may, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that till the closing of the current academic session of the daughter of the petitioner the retention period in terms of the clause 16(iv) of the said general guidelines may be given by way of exempting the rule. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the vacation notice is without any reason and as such is required to be interfered with. Mr. Deb, learned counsel to advance a purposive interpretation of the rules has referred a decision of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K. M .Hassan Uzzaman reported in (1985) 4 SCC 689 where the Apex Court has enunciated the law by stating as under: Subsection (2) of Section 21 provides that the aforesaid electoral roll shall be revised in the prescribed manner with reference to the qualifying date (i) before the general election to the Legislative Assembly of a State or the House of the People and (ii) before each bye-election to fill a casual vacancy in a seat allotted to the constituency, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing. In other words, revision before a general election or a bye-election of the electoral roll is the rule and non-revision is the exception which is permissible only when the Election Commission directs for reasons to be recorded in writing. Clause(b) of subsection(2) provides that the electoral roll shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by the Election Commission. In other words, the Election Commission may direct that an electoral roll be revised in any year although there may be no ensuing general or bye-election. There is a proviso added after clause(b). Having read the report—Lakshmi Charan Sen(supra) this Court does not find any relevance in the present context, particularly in interpreting the provision of the guidelines. The word ‘guidelines’ by itself means a guidance for the competent authority for resolving issues relating to allotment of the family quarters. The guidelines does not have the force of rule but it only lends transparency in the transaction. However, breach thereof can be questioned on the touchstone of unreasonableness. The word ‘guidelines’ by itself means a guidance for the competent authority for resolving issues relating to allotment of the family quarters. The guidelines does not have the force of rule but it only lends transparency in the transaction. However, breach thereof can be questioned on the touchstone of unreasonableness. In the present case, while this Court was examining the guidelines, it transpired to this Court that the petitioner’s application for extension of the retention period was disposed of by the office order dated 30.10.2017(AnnexureR1) by observing as follows: “Considered but rejected due to devoid of merit. Hence individual may be directed to vacate the occupied quarter within 01(one) month failing which market rent recovery @ Rs.12,400/per month for Type-II may be started from the pay & allowances being as an unauthorized occupant as per the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.” 13. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has categorically stated that the petitioner’s allegations as averred in the writ petition are wholly unfounded. It would be apparent that the application of the petitioner for exemption and extension of the retention period was duly considered in accordance with the rules and the guidelines prevailing in respect of the extending the retention period on the ground of the children’s education. 14. Mr. Deb, learned counsel in rejoinder has submitted that the respondents have also discriminated in granting the exemption in respect of the period of retention. One Safikuddin Barbhuya was given extension due to children’s education till 06.10.2018 but on the same ground when the petitioner had applied that was not considered in the same manner. 15. Having considered the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel as well as scrutinized the records, this Court is of the considered view that neither the claim of the petitioner for extension of the ordinary retention period nor the ground of discrimination as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner are tenable inasmuch as there is no apparent violation of the guidelines as the words ‘current academic session’ etymologically carries a definite meaning. The ‘current academic session’ thus means the academic session which wards were pursuing. At the same time, the exemption in respect of Safikuddin Barbhuya or Prasenjit Sarkar as has been accorded has been so accorded on the premises which are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The ‘current academic session’ thus means the academic session which wards were pursuing. At the same time, the exemption in respect of Safikuddin Barbhuya or Prasenjit Sarkar as has been accorded has been so accorded on the premises which are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the exemption for retention of the quarters by waiving guidelines or FR SR 317-B-4(1) cannot be directed by this Court inasmuch whether the exemption would be granted on “special consideration” it can only be decided by the competent authority. Such consideration falls within their domain. However, having regard to the consequence of such denial, the children of the petitioner, no doubt may suffer serious difficulty in pursuing their academic career. Hence, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the Additional Director General of the CRPF by laying down the difficulties that the wards of the petitioner would suffer in case the period of retention is not extended by another one year. So far the market rent recovery with effect to 01.12.2017 is concerned the petitioner may also urge to rationalize the same for the retention. Such application be filed by 31.03.2018 and the Additional Director General of the CRPF shall with a human touch, consider the said representation as expeditiously as possible. The enhanced rate of rent as reflected in the office dated 30.10.2017(Annexure-R1 to the reply) shall not be enforced or recovered from the salaries of the petitioner or her husband till the Additional Director General of the CRPF considered the representation of the petitioner which shall invariably be filed within 31.03.2018, if the petitioner is inclined to derive advantage of this order. 16. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.