Indefinite blacklisting without defined duration and proper procedural fairness is arbitrary, violating natural justice principles and requiring a clear basis for such action.

JUDGMENT :

SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Yadav, learned advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions, including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned indefinite blacklisting order bearing Letter No. SSA/J.S.P./12226-34/2025-26 dated 26.11.2025 as well as the letter bearing No. SSA/District Resource Training/9852-60/2025-26 dated 29.09.2025, issued by Respondent No. 4, as the letter expands the scope of work of the petitioner and runs contrary to the Government Order dated 26.07.2024, and further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, jointly and severally, to forthwith reinstate and restore the contract awarded to the petitioner for supply of 168 ECCE Educators and 40 Technical Instructors in District Shahjahanpur under Bid No.GEM/2025B5794364, to remove the petitioner’s name from the blacklist maintained on the GeM portal and from all records of the State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities, to permit the petitioner to participate in future tenders and continue the existing contract without reference to the impugned blacklisting order.

3. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of providing manpower and outsourcing services to various government departments, and it challenges certain administrative actions taken by the respondents under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, culminating in the blacklisting order dated 26.11.2025, which does not specify the period for which the petitioner company has been blacklisted.

4. The record indicates that the State Government issued Government Order No. 68-5099/178/2024 (Basic Education) dated 26.07.2024 governing contractual engagements under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. Pursuant thereto, a GeM bid bearing No. GEM/2025/B/5794364 was floated on 11.01.2025 along with the Additional Terms and Conditions. The petitioner participated in the said bid process and was selected for execution of training-related work.

5. In furtherance thereof, Respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 16.06.2025, required the petitioner to publish an advertisement on the Seva Yojna portal for engagement of 168 ECCE Educators. Thereafter, vide communication dated 29.09.2025, Respondent No. 4 called upon the petitioner to prepare a merit-wise list of 504 candidates after verification of their original documents, while also raising certain issues with regard to performance. The petitioner submitted its response to the said communication on 21.10.2025.

6. Further communications were issued by Respondent No. 4 on 28.10.2025 and 31.10.2025, to which the petitioner submitted replies on the respective dates along with supporting material. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 placing petitioner under blacklisting, without even specifying the duration thereof.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 placing the petitioner under blacklisting is arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, hence unsustainable in