The inherent right of the Executive to refrain from dealing with a particular person for a legitimate purpose, as long as the decision is fair and rational without being arbitrary.

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 29.01.2019 passed by respondent no.1 (the Food Corporation of India - FCI), whereby the FCI has decided to terminate the contract entered into with the petitioner and seek refund of the amount of Rs.14,03,389/- paid by it to the petitioner. In addition, the FCI has also debarred the petitioner from participating in any future tenders of FCI for a period of five years.

2. Insofar as the decision of FCI to terminate the contract and recover the amount already paid to the petitioner is concerned, the same is a contractual dispute between the said parties and this Court does not consider it apposite to entertain this controversy in this petition. It would, of course, be open for the petitioner to institute an appropriate action in this regard, if so advised. In view of the above, the scope of the present petition is limited to examining the decision of FCI to debar the petitioner from participating in future tenders for a period of five years.

3. The action against the petitioner has been taken on account of the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to perform the contract relating to recruitment of Watch and Wards staff of FCI. The said work was entrusted to the petitioner on 10.04.2017. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued in Employment News for holding a written examination to be held on 18.02.2018 for recruiting Watch and Wards staff on 53 posts. It is stated that on 18.02.2019, approximately one lakh candidates appeared for the written examination, which was conducted in one hundred and seventy examination centres across Delhi and NCR. The petitioner claims that approximately four thousand five hundred school invigilators and support school staff were employed in the said exercise. This stage having been completed, the petitioner submitted its bill for services rendered for an amount of Rs.29,13,744.50/-.

4. Thereafter, on 27.03.2018, the petitioner commenced the second stage of the process entailing scrutiny of documents and verification of the shortlisted candidates. It is stated that in all one hundred and seventy-one candidates - which was about more than three times the number of vacancies - were shortlisted for undertaking of physical endurance test (PET). Admittedly, the PET was conducted on 28.03.2018.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner prepared dossiers of ninety-six candidates. Out of the said ninety-six candidates who had cleared the PET (physical endurance test), fifty-three candidates were to be empanelled and remaining forty-three were required to be placed on a waiting list.

6. It is stated that there was an incident in regard to the examination held in the West Zone (Madhya Pradesh Region) of Food Corporation of India and, on 09.05.20188, a General Advisory was issued by FCI Headquarters to exercise of due diligence before issuance of appointment letters.

7. Subsequently, it was found that there was a mismatch of photographs and signatures of fourteen candidates in the dossiers submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, a Committee comprising of three Assistant General Managers of FCI was constituted to verify the documents and the identity of the candidates. The said Committee called seventeen candidates, which included fourteen candidates in respect of whom there was suspected mismatch of signatures/thumb impressions. The said Committee interacted with the said candidates and found that someone else had impersonated them in the written test conducted by the petitioner. It is stated that four of the candidates admitted to such misconduct. It is stated that FCI had sent the documents to FSL for matching signatures/thumb impressions and the report received indicated that the signatures/thumb impressions of ten candidates did not match with the signatures/thumb impressions taken at the time of the written examination.

8. On 03.07.2018, a Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petiti