WP/34632/2025 of M/s. Murali Manpower Agencies Vs Union of India on 21 January 2026

ORDER:

Petitioner - M/s Murali Manpower Agencies, a sole proprietorship concern registered under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriscs Act, 2006 is dngaged in the business of providing manpower services including security services, housekeeping services and other ancillary services to various establishments. PetitionErs contend that they have at all times conducted their business strictly in accordance with the requirements of law and statutory compliances. h

1.1. lt is contended that in 2023, pursuan Lo the tender floated by the 3'd Respondent lor providing se, r rity services across the Enrployees State Insurance Corpor I ion Meclical Coltcge and Hospital Campus situated at )antrthnagar' Hyderabad, Telangana, contract was awarded n favour of Petitioners uide Contract dated 3l -O1.2023 Accordingly, Petitioners commenced providing security servict: in terms of the said contract and discharged their obligr r ions to thc satisfaction of the Respondent authorities. In Janrr t1 2024, thc

3. d Respondent issued proceedings extending t re aforesaid contract till 31 .03.2024 or till finalisation o[ a ncr contract b1' the Respondent authorities, whichever was r', rlier. Thus, Petitroners were existing service providers and s ood already adjudged technically and financially compe ( nt by the Respondent authorities themselves. I .'2. It is contended, while Petitioners u't I :'continuing to render services, the 3'd Respondent floated a iesh Tender dated 28.08.2025 through the Government e-Mark ( tplacc Portal for providing sccuri[r services at the Employees St i Le lnsurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital, I anathnagar, Hyderabad, for one year with total value of the ccr tract as INR ),2,47,20,021 / Tender was uploaded on the Clr vernment e I i

Marketplace Portal, which is a centralized platform facilitating on line procurement of goods and services for Government departments, organizations and public sector undertakings. Petitioners participated in the said tender process and submitted their technical bid on O8.O9.2025.

1.3. It is the specihc contention of Petitioners that the 2"d Respondent issued binding Guidelines dated 14.11.2024 fot engagement of contractLral manpower in establishments run by the Employees State [nsurance Corporation (ESI) which prescribe the technical eligibiliry criteria evaluation methodolory and mark break-up to be followed while awarding tenders. Bid Document dated 28.08.2025 itself makes relerence to and relies upon the Guidelines dated 14.11..2024, thereby expressly admitting that the tender process is governed by the said Guidelines. Consequently, the 3'd Respondent was bound to strictly adhere to the provisions and framework prescribed under the said Guidelines r,r,hilc framing thc tender conditions and while evaluating the bids. Upon opening and scrutiny of the technicai bids submitted pursuant to the Tender dated

28. O8.2025, the 4rt Respondent Committee shorllisted 15 bids out of 62; on completion of technical evaluation, the 4m Respondent Committee furnished its report allocating marks to ( -\-*'- the shortlisted bidders, wherein Petitioners were a\ i rclcd 77 out of 1O0 marks.

7.4. lt is oontended that one of the techr-rir I I evaluation parameters under the tender pertained to the av r'zrge annual turnover of the bidder for the previous three finan': al years' As per the tender conditions, a bidder was to be awartl c1 10 marks if the average :rrttrual turnover was above INR 4! 19,00,000/- ancl less tl-ran INR 54,97,90,000 l-, and 12 marks 1 the avcrage annual turnover u'as above INR 59,86,80,000/ - a r cl less than INR 64,85,7O,00O/-. The average annual turnover .'Petitioners for the prcvious Lhrec financial years was INR 60 : 5,57,4751 as certified by zL certificate dated 05.09.2025 )espite thc Petitioncrs' turr)over being far in excess of the ccl lract value, the 3'd Respou<lcnt awarded only 12 marks under he turnover criterion. The (iuidelines dated 14.11.2024 permt only three slabs for turnover-based scoring, namely 1O marl: , 15 marks and 20 marks. Contrary thereto, Tender clatecl 28'08 2025 introduced ten different slabs ranging from 10 tr 20 marks, including intermediate slabs such as 11, 12, 13, ll, 16, 17,18 and 19 marks. Petitioners contend that such leviation is ex facie contrary to the binding Guidelines datt:r t 14 11'2024 and is therefore iliegal

1.5. It is further contended that the minimum turnover requirement of INR 49,89,0O,O0O/- and the maximum turnover limit of INR 99,78,00,O00/- prescribcd under the tender are grossly disproportionate to the contract value of INR 12,47 ,2O,O21 I -. Petitioners contend that turnover criteria are intended only to ensure financiai capacity to execute the contract and must be proportionate. The impugned criteria are arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the CVC Guidelines governing public procurement. Under the experience criterion prescribed, a bidder was entitled to be awarded 20 marks if it had executed more than [-rve contracts in the relevant tield. Petitioners stated, six operational contracts executed in the relevant field, duly supported by Proforma-D and documentary evidence. Despite submission of six eligible contracts, the 3rd Respondent awarded only 15 marks instead of the entitled 2O marks, without any lawful justihcation. Such reduction of marks is stated to be deliberate and intended to prejudice the technical evaluation of Petitioners. | .6. Under the guise of prescribing the nature of documents to be submitted, the 3'd Respondent illegally introduced an additional eligibiliry condition requiring that only li4. I I

experience certilicates or work ordcrs pertainirr ; to ong()Ing operational securirY contracts involving depr) :,'mcnI of a minimum ol 40 outsourced contractual pcrsonnt l per conl ract would be considcred. Such a condition ltnds lto place in the Guidelines dated 14. | 1.2024 and is there forc illegal. Even assuming sltch a condition to be applicabie, P: itioners had fully complied rvith the same and they had depll d more than 4O personncl undcr all six contrzrcts by engagini relit'vers and additional manpo\\/er as mandated under labr:r r lar"'s. The actual deployment always exceeds the numbers nen[ioned in work orders duc to staLutory requiremenLs relirl i rg to weckly offs, leave and rclievers.

1.7. lt is contended that one of the cr;t tracls relied upon by Respondcnls pertains to Survey of Indi r, uhere the work order mentions deployment of 34 person' :1. The said figure represents only the minimum requircm I lt zrnd that actual deployrrent cxceeded 40 personnel. Thr Responclcnt authorities wcrc fully aware of this practice. E ven the 2"d Respondent itself had issued work order for deplt'' ment of 210 personnel for sec-urity services lor 2024 -25 but act I ally required deployment of 261 personnel to comply with abour larvs, demonstrating that actual deployment always ,r :ceeds \^'ork order figures. lt is contended that on 29.1O.2O25, immediately upon declaration of technical evaluation results, Respondcnt authorities proceeded to open the linancial bids without granting a minimum window of forty-eight hours to enable bidders to seek clarification or redressal of grievances. Peti[ioncrs therefore, are stated to have addressed e mail dated 29.10.2025 and raised a grievance ticket objecting to the Lechnical evaluation. After technical evaluaLion, seven bidders including Petitioners were shortlisted for submission of financial bids Petitioners contended their hnancial bid quoting a total amounL of tNR 12,47,19,O81.85/ -.

1.8. It is contended that five out of the seven shortlisted bidders, including Petitioners, quoted identical amount of tNR 12,47 ,l9,O8l -85/ - and thus emerged as Hl bidders. Despite the samc, Rcspondent authorities declared thc 5ft Respondent as the successful bidder. Pursuant to awarding contract in favour of Lhe sth Respondent, the 2"'t Respondent issued Communicalion dated 11.11 .2025 extending Petitioners' existing contract till 30. I 1.2025. Since hve bidders quoted identical hnancial bids, the technical score became determinative. Due to iilegal reduction of marks under the turnover and experience criteria, Petitioners were awarded only,

70 marks, whereas had the Guidelines datecl 14 11 2024 b<:en followed, they u-ould have sccurcd gO marks ir| he technical evaluation.

1.9. [t is r:ontended that as per Order dart t 23'03'2012 issued by the De vclopment Commissioner' MSM t ' out of the 2O7o annual procurement target earmarked for Mi MEs' a sub target of 2Ool' is resewed for MSMEs owned by St:lr :duled Cetste and Schedulcd 'lribe clltrepreneurs' Petitioners : I e an MSME entiW orvned by individuals belonging to Schedr I li I Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories and, having emerged z s H[ bidder' thecontractu'oulclhavebeenaw'ardedintheirlrrourbutfor the illegal technir:al evaluation The GeM Portal : I ;o considers additional parameters such as bidder rating and proximity to the place of selwice. Petitioners hold a S-star ralinq on the GcM Portal and are situatcd in close proximity to the I SIC Medical Cbllege and Hosprtal, Sat-rathnagar'

1.10. lt is contcncled that the ESIC Hospital (Hvderabad) Contract Workers Union submitled a Com t aint dated

18. O2.2025 befor<: the Central Vigilance Commissit'r against the 5n Respondent zrlleging illegal removal of employce i and illcgal monetary demands for reinstatement, specihcalJl naming one Mr. Mahesh, HR Manager o[ the 5s Responc.' nt. Desprte :\

pendency of such serious allegations, Respondent authorities proceeded to award the tender in favour of the sft Respondent. Petitioners therefore, submitted detailed representation dated 14 .l I .2025 bringing to the notice of Respondent authorities the illegal conditions imposed in thc Tender dated 28.08.2025. It is contcnded that in a tender floated on 77.1O.2O25 for the ESIC Super Specialty Hospital, Respondents followed the Guidelines dated 14.11.2024 and prcscribed only three turnover slabs, namely INR 4.25 crores to INR 8.5O crores for 10 marks, INR 8.5O crores to INR 12.75 crores for 15 marks, and above INR 12.75 crorcs f<>r 20 marks. Guidelines dated 14.11.2024 mandate adoption of QCBS with, TOok weightage for non- financial parameters and 3O7o for financial parameters, whereas the Tender clated 28.08.2O25 reverses thc ratio to 30:7O, which is contrary to the Guidelines and illegal. The stipulation denying MSME exemptions in the bid document is also illegal.

1.11. It is contended that Petitioners continue to render sccurity services and their contract has beeri extended till 31.12.2025, thercby demonstrating their continued technical and financiai capabitity to execute the work under the impugned tender. Respondents' contention that objections raised by the Petitioners are an afterthought is incorrect, as the t0 illegalify- became apparent only upon declzrr i tion of the technical evalual-ion. The Petitioners had raisecl i;sues during the pre-bid stast: nnd by email clatcd 29.1O.2O'2) wttich u'cre ignored. It is t herefore contended that the , r :tiotl of the Respondent authorities in awarding contracl fursuanl. to Tender dated 28.O8.2025 bearing No. GEM/2021 /B/6444045 in favour of the l)th Respondcnt is arbitrary, illep: I, violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constilution of India, c ltraly to the doctrine of level playing fie1d and principles of nattt al justice.

2. By order dated 14.11.2025, this Court lirected both the parties to mu inLain statu.s quo irt all respects.

3. Respondent No. 3 filed counte r oppt I ing the Writ Petition and contending that thc ettlire tender prri I rss pursllitnt to Tender dated 28.Oa.2025 rv.rs conductt:tI strictly in accordance with law, in a fair, transparent I rd objective manner through thc Governmctrl c Markctplac,' Fortal. The tender process \\'as designed to cnsure t ansparellcy, competitive pricing and optimal utilisation of :,rblic funds, particularly in the sensitive sector of healthcare. L is asserled that there was no irregularity, arbitrariness, bias <t mala ftde in the tender proccss and Petitioners, being unsucccs;ful biddcrs, ( ri

ll o \ have approached this Court with false, misleading and exaggerated allegations with an ulterior motive.

3.1. It is contended that Petitioners, having participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the tender conditions, eligibility criteria, evaluation methodolory and scoring mechanism, are cstopped from subsequently challenging the same afler being unsuccessful. According to Respondents, a biddcr ivho has voluntarily accepted tender conditions zrnd participatecl in the process cannot, after failing to secure the contract, turn around and question the very conditions which u,erc unifr.>rmly apptied to all bidders.

3.2. It is stated, thc scope of judicial review in tender and contractual matters is extremely limited. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular u. IJnion of Indiat, u'herein it was laid down that Courts should exercise restraint in administrativeimatters, should not sit as appellate authorities over tender decisions, and should interfere only vvhere the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrarincss, bias, mala fides or perversity' None of these grounds are made out in the present case. ' (1994) 6 scc 651

t7

3.3. it is contended that public tenders ar : commercial transactions ancl (iovernment must have freerl'l I of contract, subject only to thc requirement of fairness and rr I sonableness' Courts lack technical expcrtise to evaluate 1('I r' or decisions taken by expert committees and that intcl f : cnce at an advanced stagc of the tender process woulrl i npose heavy administrative artd ltnancial burdens on the Stat( lnd result in loss to the publir: exchcquer. The 3'd Responcle n t r ontends that tender datecl 28.08.2025 u'as governed noL or.r ' by internal guidelines but primarity by the Manual for Procr rr' ]renr of Non- Consultancy Services issued by the Dcpartmcnt ol F)xpcnditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, u'hich c:' me into force with effect from 2O.06.2025 It is asserted that zrs : rr Clause 1 3 of the said Manual, the provisions are bin<lir 1 on Central Government Ministries, Departments, attached ar t subordinate offices, autonomous bodies ancl statLltory bodit:s. n'cluding the Respondent organization. 3.4 . According to this respondent, the Manual for Procurement of Non-Consultancy Services expros: ly applies to outsourcing of services and that the tender in ques ion squarely falls within its ambit. The Manual provides a i r mprehensive framework governrng bid invitation, qualifica t on critcria, 1, W li technical evaluation, financial evaluation and Quality-cum-Cost Based Selection (QCBS) methodolory. The tender document dated 28.08.2025 clcarly stipulated that bid would be evaluated on the basis of QCBS methodologr and that the ratio of technical to financial weightage was fixed at 30:7O in strict compliance with Clause 4.3.2.4 of the Manual. The said clause mandates that the maximum r'r'eightage for non-fltnancial parameters shall not excced 3O'lo. The Respondents assert that the QCBS ratio adopted in the tcnder is therefore lawful and valid.

3.5. It is furthcr contended that Respondent No'3 constituted a Technical Committee in terms of Clause 4.3.2.6 of the Manual. The said Technical Committee was entrusted with the task of recommending the lechnical parameters, their respective weightage, scoring methodolory and minimum qualifying scores. The recommcndations of the lfechnical Committee were accepted by the Competcnt Authority and were duly incorporated into the tender document. Thus, it is contended that all due procedures prescribed under the Manual were meticulously followed. Petitioners attended the pre-bid meeting held on O8.O9.2O25 through their representative and did not raise any objection whatsoever regarding the QCBS

l4 ratio, turnover criteria or scoring methodolos' rt that stage' Having failed to object at the pre bid stage and hirr.ng accepLed the tencter conditions, Petitioners cannot nou' : rallt:nge the same after being unsuccessful.

3.6. It is contended that turnovel rcquircmcnt prescribed under the tender was hxed in ar:tl I'dance rn'ith Clause 5.1.9.1(c) of the I\4anual for Procurcn r nl of Non- Consultancy Services, which permits prescriptrt:r of averagc annual turnover ranging between three to scr''r' L limcs the estimated cost ol- the contract. Since contract vlt uc was INR 12,47,2O,O21 l-, the minimum average turnover r"lr: llxed at INR 49,89,0O,0O0/-, which is approximately four timt':' '-he (rontrac[ value. According to the Re spondents, lhe turnov.t re quircment is thus reasor-urble, proportionate and lau'li I Ter:hnical evaluation was carried out strictly in accordance \v I I thc tendcr conditions. Out of 62 bids receivcd, 15 were sho tliste d alte r preliminary scrutiny. Thereafter, upon verification -l clor--uments uploaded on GeM Portal, seven bidders were four r technically qualified and eight bidders were disqualihecl. 4arks were awarded to the qr-ralified bidders strictly as per thc n:rrk break- up stipulated in the tendcr document. :+

t5

I

3.7. lt is contended that Petitioners allegation regarding illegai introduction of turnover slabs is misconceived, as the mark break-up for average annual turnover was clearly delineated in Chapter- l, Clause 3(A) of the tender document. Petitioners, having accepted the said criteria prior to submission of bids, cannot now contend that the same is illegal or arbitrary. Under the expericnce criterion, the tender document specifically required submission of proof of operational (live) c:ontracts in security services involving deployment of a minimum of 40 outsourced contractual personnel in a single contract. As per Proforma-D, only hve of the six contracts submitted by the Petitioners satisfied this criterion and were therefore eligible for consideration. It is contended that with respect to the sixth contract relied upon by Petitioners, namely the contract awarded by the Additional Surveyor Gcneral, NIGST, Survey of India, Uppal, Hyderabad-500O39, Pctitioners misrepresented that 40 securify personnel were deployed. However, as per the actual contract document, the sanctioned manpower was only 34 security personnel. On account o[ such misrepresentation, Petitioners were rightly awarded only 15 marks instead of 20 under the experience criterion.

t6

3.8. It is contended that Petitioners I r ve not only misled Respondent authorities but have also rtternpted to mislead this Court by suppressing the correct man )owcr figures contained in the Survey of India contract. ,,ccording to Respondents, this misrepresentation by itst I disentitlcs Petitioners from any equitable relief under Artrc I 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegation regarding hrL ried opening of financial bids is baseless. The tender was pro( ( ssecl rrntirely through GeM Portal, and after completion rf rechnical evaluation, thc portal automatically proceeds to lre financial evaluation stage. There is no mandatory requirem, rt undcr thc GeM framework to provide a 4S-hour windou, lrr grievancc redressal prior to opening of financial bids. tt is co rtenilcd tlrat financial evalu:rtion was conducted strictly in at:r r rdanc:e u,ith the QCBS mcthodologr. The final score was ' )mputed by normalising thc tt:chnical score and financial score nd applf ing the prescribed formula, namely F inal Score i( . I Technical Score)+(O.7 Financial Score). The bidder securinri the highesl composite scorc \\'as declared successful.

3.9. It is contended that Petitioners' clt rr ol- having emerged as H I hidder is misleading, as the ter ( er u,as not awarded solell,' on the basis of lowest fina r ..:ial quotc. &,

tl Respondents assert that the 5fr Respondent emerged as the successlul bidder based on the highest final composite score under QCBS methodologr and not merely on the basis of financial bid. It is contended that the Petitioners reliance on MSME status and SC/ST ownership is misconceived. According to Respondents, there is no automatlc entitlement to award of contract merely on the basis of MSME status or rcservation claims, particularly when the tender conditions expressly stipulated that no exemptions would be granted. It is conLended that Respondents are not in a position to verify the authenticity of GeM Portal ratings and proximity parameters relicd upon by the Petitioners, as such criteria are determined by GeM authorities, who are not parties to the present proceedings. 3.1O. It is contended that the entire tender process was undertaken strictly in conformity w'ith the prevailing public procurement guidelines and that the Petitioners' challenge is an afterthought raised only after they failed to secure thc contract. Petitioners, having participated in the tender without demur, lack locus to challenge the tender conditions post facto. Writ Petition has been filed with an intent to mislead this Court and to stall the implementation of the tender. It is pointed out that the existing contract is expiring on 3O.ll.2025 and that )

l8 continuation of interim orders would sevcrt I ' affect the functioning of the hospital and disrupt esse t)li rl healthcare SCTVlCCS

3. 1 1- It is contended that Employees Sta te lnsurance Corporation Medical Coltege and Hospital I :r Cen tral Government hospital providing essential servicc to patients and that public interest and continuity of he:rltl-:art: sen'ices must preva il over private commercial it ttt I :sts of an unsuccessful bidder. AnSr delay in commencemcnl )f st:rvices by the successful bidde r r.r'ould result in irreparabl,l harrn to the public at large .

4. Respondent No.5 filed a detailed cotln,' r con[ending that Petitione rs have not demonstrated any vio I tion oI ll'rcir constitutional or fundamentai rights and have fzril,-' I to r:stablish any public law element justifying invocation of rrrri -iurisdiclior-r. According to them, Writ Petition is based entircli dn disputed questions of fact, including technical evaluation, scoring :rnd ranking, which cannot be adjudicated in writ prt :cedings. On this ground zrlone, the u,rit petition is stated to bc nis<:onceived and liable to be dismissed.

4.1. Respondent No. 5 contends th:. they are profcssionally managed private limited company : ;tablishecl in Z l9 2006 having 18 years of experience in the field of security services with branch ofhces across 11 States including New Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Telangana, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Chandigarh and Chhattisgarh. It is further contended that they manage more than 5,500 security personnel across India and successfully partnered with more than 100 Central and Statc Government deparLme nts, with a sustained growth rate of 5O to 8O7o.

4.2. Respondent No.5 participated in Tender datcd

28. Oa.2025 facilitated by Respondent No.2, for providing unarmed security services at a healthcare facility for a contract period of one year, with an estimated bid value of INR 1,24,72,OO,21.441-. They submitted its bid diligentty and lurnished all documents, certifications and particulars striclly in accordance with the tender conditions. A total of 62 bidders participated in the said tender. Upon preliminary scmtiny, i5 bidders were shortlisted and out of those, 7 bidders were found technically qualihed. It is contended that technical scores o[ 7 qualilred bidders ranged between 70 ard 90 marks. Among these 7 bidders, top five were placed in Hl category, while the remaining two were categorized as H2 and H3 respectively, L ll I

strictly in accordance with the evaluation critt: ia prescribed under the tender document.

4.3. It is further contended, Tencl : Evalui,rtion Committee short.listed I 5 bidders out of 62 based , ,n verificirtion of documents uploaded on the Government -Mzrrketplace Portal. Upon such scrutiny, Respondent No.i was fr>und technically-compliant and was duly shortlisted zrl: rg with other eligible bidders. It is asserted that the evaluation vas objective, uniform and non discriminatory. It is conten( ed that the challenge raised by Petilioners to the technical cr teria releLting to average antruztl tLtrnover and mark break-up s\ : tem is wllolly untenable. Ac<:ording to Respondent No.5, the tt:r I nical criteria uniformly applied to all 62 bidders and the de,rmination of eligibility criteria and allocation of marks falls exc. Lsivcll'within the domain of Respondents 2 to 4. Petrtio Lers, having participated u,ith ftrll knowledgc ol the criteria, cirrr rbt challt:nge lhe same after be ing unsuccessful.

4.4. Respondent No.5 contends that tenrl, r document, particularly pages 5 and 7, clearly prescribed tlrc methodolory for awarding marks bascd on the average annual 1r rnover of the preceding thrce financial years. Petitioners themsr' ,zes admitted that their avcragc annual turnover was INR 64,85,'z0,O00/-. for k t 2.1 which they were rightly awarded 12 marks strictly as per the tender conditions. The annual turnover of Respondent No.5 is substantially higher than that of Petitioners, hence they were rightly awarded 20 marks under the turnover criterion. Respondent No.3, as thc procuring organization, had absolute authority to prescribe the tender methodolory and evaluation parameters. The competent authority constituted a Tender Evaluation Committce, u,hich applied the prescribed scoring mcthodologr uniformly to all bidders based on documents submitted. No deviation or preferential trcatment is alleged or established.

4.5. Respondent No.5 disputes Petitioners' claim that execution of more than f-rve contracts automatically entitles a bidder to 20 marks. It is contended that tender required submission of present operational contracts in the relevant field. While Petitioners submitted six contracts, one was not accepted by the competent authority. In contrast, Respondent No.5 submitted eight currcntly operational contracts, of which seven involved deployment of more than forty outsourced contractual personnel. Respondent No.5 and Petitioners were evaluated strictly under the same criteria. Respondent No.5, having scored higher marks under the prescribed parameters and having been found more suitable, was rightly placed above tht' )etitioners in the technical evaluation. Respondent No.5 further r ontt:nds that the lender prescribed separate criteria for total cx terience ernd experience in Govcrnment, Semi-(iovernment and )ublic Sector Undertakings. Any company with more than 1() , ears of total experience r,r,as r:ntitlcd to 15 marks, and any (, mpany urith more than 10 years of experience in the rek r ant field in Government, Serni Government or PSUs u,as cr titled to 20 marks. Respondent No.5, being registered irr 2006 and continuously engaged in the relevant he1d, fully s rtisfied both criteria and was rightl-y awarded thc corrcsponding narks.

4.6. It is contcndcd that Respondent No.l, had no role whatsoever in the processing or e valuation of tl'r,r tcr-rder. The entire process u,zrs conductcd through the GeM I rrtal, which automatically progresses through evaluation stail s based on predefined svstcrn protocols. All evaluatio.r" .,'- d therelbre independent, objective and transparent. It is adm ,led that five out of the seven shortlisted bidders, including Pct tioners and Respondent No.5, quoted an identical financial bid of INR 12,47 ,19,O81.85/ -. Howevcr, Respondent No.5 errt rged as the successful H 1 bidder on account of securin5l he highest technical score among the H I bidders and was tlrr:r-r fore ranked ti I Ii at the top. Respondent No.S secured 90 out of 100 marks in the technical evaluation, whereas Petitioners secured only 77 marks and were rightly placed in the H2 category. Petitioners, having been aware of the tender conditions and having participated voluntarily, cannot challenge the process merely because the outcome was unfavourable [o them. Respondent No.5 further contends that it aiso possesses a valid MSME certificate. Petitioners' SC/ST MSME status, by itself, cannot override a technically superior bidder, particularly where technical score is the prescribed tie breaker and the top bidder is equally MSME compliant. 4.7 . It is contended that Petitioners' existing contract, extended till 30.11.2025, does not create any vested or legitimate right to secure the new contract. Such extension is only a stopgap arrangement and cannot be relied upon in a fresh tender process. Respondent No.S lurther contends that themselves and Petitioners participated in an earlier tender dated 21.05.2025 issued by ESIC for providing Healthcare Sanitation Services. In that tender, Petitioners secured HS rank, Respondent No.5 secured H2 rank, and the contract was awarded to BVG India Limited as Hl bidder. It is contended that the tender dated 21 .O5.2O25 contained the verv same selection criteria and turnover-based scoring slabs, -anging from 10 to 2O marks, identical lo [he tender datr:c 28.O4.2025. Despite the uniform application of identical ;ritr:ria, the Petitioners did not challenge the earlier tcnder anrl havt: chosen to challenge the present tender only because the c aluation did not yield a favourablc result.

4. a. Respondent No.5 places reliance on tl c judgments of the Hon'ble Suprcme Court in Afcons Infrastttt :ture Ltd. a. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.2 Jagdist Mandal o. State of Ortssae and MS Michigan Rubber (In dia) Ltd. u. State oJ Karnatakaa, to contend that mere disaS;r eemr:nt u,ith tender evaluation does not warrant judicial inlt, ference and that courts must defer to the tendering authorit.r L-rnlcss mala fides, arbitrariness or perversitl, is establishecl. It is finally contended that Writ Petition is a clear attempt bv i d isgruntled and unsucr'cssful bidder to dcrail a lawfully r, r r.ilu,led and transparent tender process on speculative allt:gations. Respondent No.5 asserts that its selection as Lhc highest qualifying H I bidder is strictly in conformity u,itl the tender '1zoto; ro scc a rs '(2007) l4 scc 5 tl ' lzotz; s scc z ro t, conditions and applicable 1aw and that the Writ petition deserves dismissal.

5. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Iearned Deputy Soiicitor General on behalf of Respondent No.l, Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4, and Sri Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M.P.K. Aditya, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

6. At the outsel, the undisputed factual position that emerges from the record is [hat Tender dated 28.O8.2025 was admittedly governed by the Guidelines dated 14.11.2024 issued by the 2"a Respondent [or engagement of contractual manpower in establishments run by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The bid document itself contains a specihc reference acknowledging the applicability of the said Guidelines. Having expressly adopted the Guidelines dated 14.1L.2024 as the governing framework, Respondents were bound to adhere to the same in letter and spirit while formulating the tender conditions as well as while undertaking the technical evaluation

7. A careful examination of the Guidt 14.11.2024 reveals that Lhe turnover-based evaluat is exhaustively prescribed therein. The Guideliner; restrict the mark break up for turnover to only namely 1O, 15 and 20 marks. The object of such re-' is clearly to prevent arbitrary gradation, eliminat: and ensure uniformity and fairness in technic.l across ESIC establishments. However, in the pl't dated 28.08.2025, the 3'd Respondent introduccil ten different slabs ranging from 1O to 2O marks. T: is not a minor procedural deviation but a substanli of the evaluation framework prescribed under Guidelines. Significantly, no material has been plac by Respondents to demonstrate that any approval, deviation from the Guidelines dated 14. ll.2O24 't from the competent authority. In the absence of s ' unilateral introduction of multiple turnover slat,{ Respondent clearly ultra uires the Guidelines whi,: govern the tender. Once the Gr,ridelines are held t( Respondents cannot seleclively apply or ignore por to suit the outcome of [he tender process. (, t lines dated on criterion consciously -hree slabs, ricted slabs subjectivity evaluation sent tender as many as Ls departure ,e alteration ,he binding :d on recclrd 'elaxation or as obtained :6 approval, bY the 3'd r admittedly be binding, .ions thereof

8. This Court also finds considerable force in the contention of Petitioners rvith respect to the turnover requireme nL prescribed under the tender. The minimum average annual turnover of INR 49,89,0O,OO0/- has been stipulated for a contract u.hose total value is only INR 12,47,2O,O2l l-. Such a requirement is nearly four times the contract value. Even assuming that the Manual for Procurement of Non-Consultancy Services rclied upon by Respondents is applicable, the said Manual itself mandate s that technical criteria must be relevant, reasonable and proportional to the scope and value of the contract and should not be framcd in a manner that excludes otherwise competent bidders.

9. In the present case, Petitioners demonstrated that their average annual turnover is far in excess of the contract value and that they are already perlorming the very same work as existing service providers. In such circumstances, rfixation of an excessively high turnover threshold, coupled with an artihcial gradation of marks, cannot be justified on the touchstone of proportionality. The principle of proportionality, which has now become an integral facet o[ Rrtltte t+, stands clearly violated.

10. The Court lurther hnds merit in the ch:L lenge to the experience criterion adopted by Respondcnts. Imp:;ition of :rn additional requirement that only those operatiot r I r:ontracts involving deployment of a minimum o[ 4O outsourlc 1 pcrsonnel per contract r,r,ould be considered for awarding ftr]l r rarks is rtot traceable either to the Guidelines dated 14. 1 1.201 1 or to any statutory provision. The Guidelines do not conl( mplate any such numerical threshold relating to manpowcr :r rcngth in a single contract. 1 1. The material placed on record br Petitione rs, including wage registers, pay slips and other s[alr. r ]ry recor<ls, pima facie establishes that actual deployment r lnanpo\\'er exceeded 40 personnel by accounting for relievers l rd statutory compliance under labour 1aws. Reliance solely on ll 3 rnanpouer figures mentioned in work orders, while completelv ignoring the actual manpower deployed on thc ground, refle, rr r ('1,'ar n()n- application of nrind and mechanical evaluatrr r Such an approach defeats the very purpose of assess r g lr:chnical capability and experience.

12. The allegation of misrepresentation lcu rllecl against Petitioners by Respondents also does not stan( to judicial ! scrutiny.-Except lbr a bald assertion based on figrrlr s mcntioned ,].

in one work ordcr, no cogent material has been produced to discredit the documentary evidcnce furnished by Petitioners. On thc contrary, the contemporaneous wage registers and pay slips lend credcnce to Petitioners' assertion regarding actual deployment. In the absence of clear and convincing material, the serious allegation of misrepresentation cannot be sustained.

The Court also takes note of the fact that in the prcsent tendcr, hve out of sevcn shortlisted bidders quoted identical financial bids. In such a scenario, technical evaluation assumes decisive and determinative significance. When the outcome of the tender hinges substantially on technical scores, any iilegality, arbitrariness or deviation lrom prescribed norms at the stage of technical evaluation vitiates the entire selection process. Petitioners demonstrated Lhat, but for the illegal grading and arbitrary denial of marks, and the failure of the Evaluation Committee to consider their status as an MSME entily belonging to the SC/ST category despite their emergence as H 1 bidders, they would have secured substantially higher technical scores. L4 It is true that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited and that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in commercial decisions of the State. However, it is equally well-settled that such sell imposed restra 1 t does not operate as an absolute bar. Where the tender coni i ions or the evaluation process are found to be arbitrary, dil;, riminatory, irrational or in direcl contravention of binding gu r t:lines, this Court would be lailing in its constitutional duty if L declines Lo intervene.

15. [n thc present case, cumulative t I 'ect of the deviations from the Guidelines dated I 4 .1 1 .2024 . disproportionatc turnover requirement, intro luction ol extraneous eligibility conditions, and mechanical manner in which the tcchnical evaluation was undertir icn clezrrl-v demonstrates arbitrariness and violation of the do r rine of levcl playing held. The Court is also constrained to oI):( rve Lha[ the Evaluation Committee did not apply its mind to tlL, Pctjtioners' status as an MSME entity belonging to the S(l ' lT categor], despite Petitroners having emerged as one anr ,ng thc H I biclders. The failure to consider such a materi:r I Lnd relev.rn t aspect, while finalising the technical cvaluatir>n rcnders the process not only proceduraily flawed but substiur ively unfair. The tender procoss, therefore, stands vitiated irt the stage of technical evaluation itself.

3l

16. This Courl is therefore of the considered view that the impugned action of Respondents in evaluating the technical bids and in awarding the tender pursuant to Tender dated

28. O8.2025 cannot be sustained in law. Petitioners have made out a clear case for interference under Article 226 of Lh.e Constitution of India.

17. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the detailed discussion hereinabovc, this Court holds that the tcnder conditions as well as the technical evaluation carried out pursuant to Tender dated 28.Oa.2025 bearing No. cEMl2025lBl6488045 are in clear derogation of the binding Guidelines dated 14. l),.2024 issued by the 2"d Respondent. The deviations in the formulation of eligibility criteria, the arbitrary manner of technical evaluation, and the failure of the Evaluation Committee to consider the Petitioners' MSME status and their belonging to the SC/ST category, despite their position as H 1 bidders, reflect non-application of mind, lack of proportionality and institutional unfairness. The impugned action, therefore, violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

18. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The action of Respondents in awarding tender pursuant to Tender dated (

2a.Oa.2025 bearing No. GtrM/2O251816488045 in : vour of the 5th Respondent is set aside. Official Respondents:ut directed to undcrtakr: a fresh technical evaluation o[ thc bic r strictly in accordance uith the Guidelines dated 14.11.'2t) 14 and in conformity n,ith tl-re observations and principles lr id clown in this judgment. Such fresh evaluation shall be com: cted within a reusonzrblc period of eight weeks from the datc o[ rcceipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

19. Conseqnently, the miscellaneous Ap : ications, ii any shall stand closcd. / SD/. t .PONNA KRISHNA ASSII; -ANT REGISTRAR ,-.\ \ \\ //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, I 1 The Secretary. Union of lndia, Ministry 9f.!lb^o.ur an[tnr rloyment Shram ' iiirr.iiriii**in, n,riMarg, New Delhi-'110 001 z ii.iJ iii,"""tdi bt " eia 1 e#,ffi a tm niWm,T I'J', a'i:' T] ":l: off ice at PanchdeeP Bhi '**i?i"fl :i:rr::i':"s,*ni[r+il'll'l'*TlrJl"'lail3x't'n't]' ii;o"" ;;i,;;' :50obo 5, r"L-n-{un J lgo n1 5mqloylej S tat r I nsu ra n ce i#pTi"*" dil;;;',"; H6ipi[ai sanatnnasai' Sanjee"' :ddv-500 038' Hvderabad 4 The convenor, Tender Evaluation commitlge, Employee ; State lnsurance ' il;p;;;il; -nr bqit, r co t t"s" *+5:i353tn:? i3"llt r S- ONd CC tO SRI PASHA 6 One CC ro SRt N.BHuilr.ibl'natj, ij;p;tv silicitor Ge reral of lndia' Hish ; 3""[t's..,Ya $it"""J,Ifrff Eamnn: gB"'1,.'3[y3' es state I nsura nce Corooration. tOPUCI

8. #5cc'6'6h'i rtr ik.notrvA, Advocate' [oPUC]

9. Two CD CoPies. BSK ,/t . ry,. I

*1 HIGH COURT DATED:2110112026

ORDER

WP.No.34632 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t$ -t i,, \. T}IE S14 0 { Ft8 206 z I I I I * aD v