The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a tender must be based on valid reasons and compliance with eligibility criteria. The court emphasized the importance of meeting the specified experience and turnover requirements for contract consideration.

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-In the matter of awarding of contract for “Imparting Teaching in Computer Education and Maintenance of Computers, UPS and peripherals etc” by the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. The petitioner-tenderer has submitted this writ petition aggrieved of the rejection of his offer by the respondent-University assailing the rejection as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and the members of the tender committee acting with bias.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of determination of the questions involved in this writ petition are that according to the petitioner the respondent, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur with a view to provide computer education to the students enrolled in the University, invited tenders in the year 2001 and after scrutiny, entered into agreement with four different firms namely, Vital Academy, Education Linx, E- Gurucul and Diamond Finvest. According to the petitioner, the University made payment of about Rs. 412/-per student per year to the agencies. The petitioner is stated to be a sole proprietorship firm and its proprietor Shri Ravi Bhati is stated to be having the degree of B.Sc. (Computer Science) obtained in the year 1998 and immediately after completing his graduation, the proprietor of the petitioner firm worked as Junior Faculty Member with Nash Computers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. till January, 2002 and thereafter he was appointed as Regional Manager of the firm, Vital Academy and Education Linx for the period ranging from the years 2001 to 2004 and those being the agencies which had the contract of imparting computer education to the students of the respondent-University, the proprietor of the petitioner firm was managing the affairs of the projects awarded to the said agencies and was taking care of computer education as well as maintenance of the computer systems installed in the University.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent-University decided not to extend the agreement with the said agencies because of the irregularities committed by them and, therefore, the petitioner firm made an offer to the respondent-University of willingness to provide computer education to the students of University at the rate of Rs. 150/-per student per year. According to the petitioners, looking to the unsatisfactory performance of the agencies, the respondent-University through a notice No. 47/2005-2006 published on 21.09.2005 invited tenders from reputed and established firms for providing computer education to the students of Arts, Science and Commerce faculties.

4. The last date of submission of the tender was fixed as 110.2005 at 2:00 PM. According to the petitioner, the petitioner firm being willing and eligible to participate in the said tender, purchased the tender document which was divided in two parts, A and B. Part A consisted of 5 schedules (Schedule I to V) for technical bid. Part B consisted of single schedule i.e. Schedule VI for financial bid. Although the tenderer was required to give his campus wise bid in the financial bid (Part B), but even in the technical bid at Column 6 of the Schedule II, the tenderer was required to quote consolidated rate for all the campuses of University. This, according to the petitioner, is a clear discrepancy in the tender document. The last date for submission of tender was 110.2005 on or before 2:00 PM. The tenderer was required to submit demand drafts or cheques of earnest money i.e. 2% of the cost of the project. It was mentioned in the tender document that the technical bid envelope A will be opened on 110.2005 at 2:30 PM and the financial bid envelope B will be opened on 110.2005 at 2:00 PM in the Office of Registrar. It was further mentioned that the tender received after due date and time, unsealed or without earnest money will be rejected. However, it was nowhere stipulated in the tender document that a tender of a firm, having furnished all the requisite information and documents can be rejected at the stage of