The main legal point established in the judgment is that clauses in tender notices and policies that bar prospective tenderers based on their relatives' employment are unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

1. The petitioner is a Government Contractor. He has been working with the Department of Telecommunication from 1988 onwards. Primarily, he is specialised in laying of underground cables. This work comprises of digging of trenches, laying of the cables, erection of D. P. boxes and other associated jobs. He has been primarily working in Patiala and Ropar Districts. He has also done jobs in Jalandhar Telecom Project. His brother, Shamsher Singh is working as a Clerk in the department of Telecommunication since 1984 and is now permanently absorbed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (a Government of India Enterprise) (hereinafter referred to as "the BSNL"). He is posted as Clerk in Nabha in the office of S.D.E. Group Telecom. Petitioners father retired as Sub-Inspector from the Department of Telecommunications in August, 1990. BSNL was constituted in the year 2000. It is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a Government of India Company. All the assets of the Department of Telecommunication along with liabilities were transferred to BSNL. All the employees except Group A and B employees were absorbed in the BSNL. The remaining employees are on deputation, without deputation allowance. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the BSNL is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the Punjab Circle of the BSNL is headed by Chief General Manager, Telecom. The Circle is divided into Secondary Switching Area/Revenue District (SSA). The SSAs are headed by General Manager, Telecom/District. SSAs are further sub-divided into Division Units which are under the direct control of Division Unit. The brother of the petitioner Shamsher Singh is under the control of D.T.E., Mandi, Gobindgarh which falls under S.S.A., Patiala. The Headquarters of the brother of the petitioner are at Nabha.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the respondents have refused to supply the tender form to the petitioner with regard to a particular work which has been advertised on 29-7-2003 by the General Manager, BSNL, Patiala. The Tender Form has been attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. The respondent-Corporation had issued the aforesaid tender notice for three works related to the area under the D.T.E., Rajpura, D.T.E., Zirakpur and D.T.E., Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioner wanted to participate in the tender process. He was sought to be debarred from participation on the basis of Clause 4 of the Tender notice which is as under :-

"4. Affidavit regarding none of his/her near relative is working in the BSNL unit."

4 According to the petitioner, the aforesaid condition has been incorporated on the basis of the policy issued by the BSNL on the subject of "Participation of near relatives of the BSNL employees in the Tender/Execution of works in BSNL Units". The aforesaid policy has been attached to the writ petition as Annexure P-2. Since the petitioner could not give an affidavit in terms of Clause 4 of the Tender Notice, he apprehended that his tender would be rejected. Earlier also, the petitioner had filed CWP No. 8129 of 2003 claiming the same relief. However, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as infructuous as the learned counsel appearing for the BSNL had submitted that the tenders invited have already been cancelled.

5. Mr. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that Clause 4 of the tender notice as also the relevant clauses in policy (Annexure P-2) are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the relevant clause of the policy (Annexure P-2) and Clause 4 of the tender notice do not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He submits that the respondents cannot debar the relatives of the employees from participating in the Telecommunication work throughout India, irrespe-tive of the fact that the relative who is employed with BSNL would not be in a position to influ