The classification of security agencies based on employment of ex-servicemen is reasonable and does not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, promoting welfare and ensuring qualified security for public sector enterprises.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to set aside/quash the Office Memorandum dated 13.09.2018 ("Impugned O.M.") issued by the Union of India/Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industries and Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises ("Respondent No. 1") and the tender dated 07.03.2019 ("Impugned Tender I"), tender dated 29.03.2019 for Haryana Region I ("Impugned Tender II"), tender dated 29.03.2019 for Haryana Region II ("Impugned Tender III") and tender for Punjab Region ("Impugned Tender IV") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Impugned Tenders") by GAIL (India) Limited ("Respondent No. 4").The Petitioner No. 1 is a private security agency established in 1974 and is licensed under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 ("PSARA"). Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are Ex-Servicemen who are employed with Petitioner No. 1 after their service in the Indian Armed Forces.

2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant Writ Petition are as follows:

i. On 19.05.1992 the Directorate General of Resettlement ("DGR" or "Respondent No. 5") which functions under the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (Ministry of Defence) issued guidelines titled "Guidelines for Sponsoring & Creating of Security Agencies & Related Activities" which laid down general norms for sponsoring security agencies for award of security contracts and the modus operandi of their functioning.

ii. Thereafter, the Ministry of Defence issued an Office Memorandum dated 04.02.1994 addressed to the Secretaries of all Ministries and Departments of Government of India, stating that Respondent No. 5 has evolved a scheme to maintain a panel of retired Service officers, State Ex-Servicemen Corporation and Ex-Servicemen Co-operative Societies who are desirous of obtaining security work on contract basis.

iii. Subsequently, on 11.11.1994, Respondent No. 1 issued an Office Memorandum requesting all administrative Ministries/Departments of the Government of India to issue instructions to public sector undertakings under their administrative control to obtain contract security services from Respondent No. 5 or the State Ex-Servicemen Security Corporation for sponsoring Ex-Servicemen Security Agencies on their panel without engaging security agencies on contract through open tender. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 on 18.03.1996 issued another O.M. reiterating the request made in the earlier O.M. dated 11.11.1994.

iv. On 10.12.1997, Respondent No.1, while noting the need for granting greater operational freedom to the public sector enterprises and a view to rationalise and simplify the existing set of guidelines to public sector enterprises, issued an O.M. cancelling the previous O.M.'s dated 11.11.1994 and 18.03.1996 amongst other guidelines/memoranda.

v. Thereafter on 01.02.1999, Respondent No. 1 issues an O.M. restoring the earlier cancelled Office Memoranda dated 11.11.1994 and 18.03.1996, modifying them to the extent that the Respondent No. 5 would sponsor more than one security agency so that Central Public Sector Enterprises ("CPSEs") concerned would have a choice in choosing a suitable outfit keeping in view their specific requirements and the service chargeable by the security agencies will be negotiable. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 issued O.M.'s dated 27.01.2003, 11.02.2005 and 04.10.2005 reiterating its request made in the restored O.M.'s.

vi. Thereafter on 11.02.2005, Respondent No. 1 issued an O.M. making Respondent No. 5, the nodal authority t