Administrative orders must be evaluated solely on the reasons provided at the time of issuance, precluding retroactive justifications. Furthermore, public selection processes lack legal validity if they rely on criteria not explicitly disclosed in the original invitation, manifesting arbitrary state action.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the Letter of Award dated 03.04.2025 issued by the Purchase Officer, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi (Respondent No.3) whereby the work related to E-Tender Ref. No. F-05/06/Security/Part-V with respect to providing security arrangement on contract basis at Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi (hereinafter referred as the said Tender), has been awarded to M/s Shiva Protection Force Private Limited (Respondent No. 4). Further prayer has been made for award of the said tender in favour of the petitioner as it was declared L1 bidder and vide email dated 05.04.2025, it was informed that its bid was accepted by the duly constituted committee.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said tender was floated by the respondent-University in which the petitioner also participated. Thereafter, being declared technically qualified, the financial bids of all the bidders were opened on 05.04.2025 and the respondent-University communicated the petitioner vide e- mail 05.04.2025 that its financial bid was accepted by the duly Constituted Committee.

3. It is further submitted that on the same day i.e. on 05.04.2025, the BOQ Summary Details were uploaded in the e-procurement portal wherein the petitioner was shown as L-1 bidder in all respect. However, the respondent-University subsequently vide another e-mail dated 05.04.2025, informed the petitioner that its bid was not selected for award of contract by the duly Constituted Committee. The petitioner was further advised to visit the e-procurement portal for further details.

4. It is contended that the petitioner having visited the e-procurement portal found that a Letter of Award dated 03.04.2025 with respect to the said tender was issued by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent no. 4.

5. It is also submitted that Tender Summary Reports relating to all the nine bidders were uploaded on the e-procurement portal on 07.04.2025 wherein the petitioner was capriciously shown as L-5 bidder. The action of the respondents is actuated with malafide and is also discriminatory in nature as well as against the express terms and conditions of the tender.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the financial bids of all the bidders were opened on 28.01.2025 and as per the computer generated ranking, the petitioner was declared L1 bidder on the basis of wages proposed for various categories of security personnel, however on close scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner had quoted wages much below the minimum wages notified under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which was not only unacceptable but was also illegal. Consequently, the petitioner’s bid as L1 was rejected by the Central Purchase Committee (CPC).

7. It is further submitted that the bids of all nine bidders were examined and it was found that 8 out of 9 bidders had quoted the commission rate as 3.85% except M/s Security and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. (SIS), Ranchi, which had quoted 10% commission rate. As such, the bid of SIS was not considered due to high commission rate and the CPC thereafter examined the ‘Average Annual Turnover’ of rest eight bidders for last three financial years wherein it was found that the respondent no. 4 had t