Mahitosh Majumdar, J. - (1.) The writ petition is directed against the order as contained in the letter dated October 29, 1985 as also the decision of the Appellate Authority of Unit Trust of India (in short the UTI) as contained in the letter No. 2871/ID-M-35/86 dated 12th February, 1986. The said two letters impugned in the writ application read thus:- "Letter No. UT/C-689/Staff 1/85-86 dated 29/10/85 issued by Mr. K.G. Vansal, General Manager (Personnel & Admn.) UTI addressed to the petitioner: Please refer to our letter No. UT/C-190/Staff-54/84-85 dated 15th May, 1985 advising you that your performance has been reported to be below average and extending the period of your probation by a further period of 6 months with effect from 16th May, 1985. You were also advised that it would be expedient in your own interest to make improvement in your work performance. Your work performance has been reported to be unsatisfactory. In view of this, it has been decided by the Competent Authority not to extend your period of Probation any further. Accordingly, you would cease to be in the service of the just with effect from 1985. Please find enclosed a sum of Rs. 1,785/- in cash being your one month's pay in lieu of notice period and a sum of Rs. 1849.85-P in cash representing your net salary for the period from 1st November to 15th November, 1985. As regards your other dues, if any, you may approach the Officer-in-Charge, Calcutta Regional Office. A copy c Office Order No. 115/85-86 dated 29th October, 1985 is also enclosed". "Letter No. 2571/LD-M-35/86 dated 12/2/1986 issued by Mr. S. Shankar, General Manager, Legal, Secretarial & Operations, UTI addressed to Sri B. K. Patra, petitioner: This has reference to your letter dated 22nd November, 1985 addressed to the Chairman. The said letter was treated as an appeal and considered by the Executive Committee at its meeting held on 24th December, 1985. We enclose herewith an extract of the proceedings of the said Executive Committee Meeting on the subject One letter dated 20th January, 1986 forwarded to you by registered post was returned and undelivered, hence this letter is sent to you".
(2.) Pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers published on October 27, 1983, the writ petitioner joined the post of Manager (Finance) under UTI. Prior to joining the UTI, the petitioner was working as Internal Auditor as Finance Executive of Ferro Scrap Nigal Ltd., at Jamshedpur'. After receiving the letter of appointment to the said assignment under the UTI issued on April 5, 1984, the writ petitioner met the Manager (Finance) Calcutta Office for providing him accordance at Bombay Regional Office where he was asked to join and'., on his assurance that he would be provided such accommodation at Bombay, the petitioner joined as Manager (Finance) under the Control of General Manager (Finance) and its Bombay Office. After reporting at Bombay office, the writ petitioner requested the General Managek (Finance) for arranging his accommodation who in no uncertain terms verbally assured the petitioner for providing such accommodation as soon as available.
(3.) The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner joined at Bombay office and before joining he was also assured that accommodation would be provided on top priority basis than those who joined the Bombay office after his joining there, but in fact, the persons joined after the petitioner at Bombay office were provided with accommodation to the exclusion of the petitioner, whose further grievance is that at that time when he approached the General Manager (Finance), there were a few flats lying vacant under their disposal for allotment which would be revealed from their statements made in the affidavit and annexures annexed in this writ petition. As a general principle in so far as the allotment of flats/quarters available with the UTI authority at Bombay should be on the basis of first-come first served. But such principle and the assurances given to the petitioner were not followed in the petitioner's case.;