In this batch of writ petitions, the award of contract to supply manpower to the Rajiv Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa, (for short “the 1st respondent”), in favour of M/s. N.M.R. & Consultants, Kadapa, (for short “the 2nd respondent”), is challenged.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh intended to establish the 1st respondent Medical College at Kadapa. Essentiality Certificate was issued and necessary permissions from NTR University of Health Sciences, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, were obtained. It was decided that the staffing pattern for teaching and non-teaching courses for the institute, shall be on regular, as well as on outsourcing basis, with effect from the Academic Year 2006-2007. A sum of Rs.5,73,87,820/- was sanctioned, vide G.O.Ms.No.562, dated 27.10.2005, to meet the expenditure towards salaries of the staff. A Committee comprising of the District Collector, Kadapa, as Chairman, and Principal and Superintendent of the 1st respondent as Members, was constituted by the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 6.4.2006, for recruitment of non-teaching staff. The method of recruitment for these posts was formulated, in Memo dated 19.7.2006, issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, to fill up 333 posts through outsourcing.

Initially, the 1st respondent issued notification, dated 24.7.2006, inviting tenders from registered outsourcing agencies, with ample experience, for supply of manpower. The tenders received in response thereto, were processed, and one of the agencies was short-listed. For one reason or the other, the process was discontinued, and a fresh tender notice was issued on 4.9.2006. 27 tenders were received in response to this. Out of them, 5 tenderers, including the petitioners in W.P.Nos.21233, 21400 and 21998 of 2006, quoted ‘0%’, as their commission. The 2nd respondent quoted ‘0.2%’. The petitioner in W.P.No.23603 of 2006 quoted ‘0.45%’. The petitioner in W.P.No.3920 of 2007 did not submit any tender, but it is stated that the work was entrusted to it, on ad hoc basis, pending finalisation of tenders. Petitioner in W.P.No.24594 of 2006 did not submit any tender.

Through their proceedings, dated 21.9.2006, the 1st respondent awarded the contract, in favour of the 2nd respondent. The tenders in which 0% commission was quoted, were treated as non-viable, and the 2nd respondent was chosen, as being the next lowest. Petitioners contend that the whole exercise was undertaken, only with a view to award the contract in favour of the 2nd respondent, some how or the other. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had come into existence, in the recent past, and it did not possess the registrations and experience, as required under the tender notice. Other alleged irregularities are also pointed out.

The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit in the individual writ petitions, pleading broadly the same facts and grounds. It is stated that the bonafides of such of the tenderers, who quoted 0% as their commission, for supply of such a huge contingent of manpower, are very much doubtful, and in that view of the matter, it was decided not to accept such tenders. The manner, in which the selection process has been undertaken, is stated in detail. The 1st respondent submits that an objective evaluation of the tenders was undertaken, and since the 2nd respondent emerged as the agency, which quoted the lowest viable commission, it was selected, and that it has fulfilled the necessary conditions.

The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the acceptance of its tender does not suffer from any illegality, or infirmity. It is stated that one of the partners of the firm had rich experience, in matters of this nature, and in that view of the matter, no irregularity can be said to have taken place, in the acceptance of its tender.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners were made elaborately, by Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, l