The court established that significant deviations from tender guidelines and arbitrary evaluation criteria violate the principles of fairness and proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner - M/s Murali Manpower Agencies, a sole proprietorship concern registered under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act, 2006 is engaged in the business of providing manpower services including security services, housekeeping services and other ancillary services to various establishments. Petitioners contend that they have at all times conducted their business strictly in accordance with the requirements of law and statutory compliances.

1.1. It is contended that in 2023, pursuant to the tender floated by the 3rd Respondent for providing security services across the Employees State Insurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital Campus situated at Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, contract was awarded in favour of Petitioners vide Contract dated 31.01.2023. Accordingly, Petitioners commenced providing security services in terms of the said contract and discharged their obligations to the satisfaction of the Respondent authorities. In January 2024, the 3^rd Respondent issued proceedings extending the aforesaid contract till 31.03.2024 or till finalisation of a new contract by the Respondent authorities, whichever was earlier. Thus, Petitioners were existing service providers and stood already adjudged technically and financially competent by the Respondent authorities themselves.

1.2. It is contended, while Petitioners were continuing to render services, the 3^rd Respondent floated a fresh Tender dated 28.08.2025 through the Government e-Marketplace Portal for providing security services at the Employees State Insurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, for one year with total value of the contract as INR 12,47,20,021/-. Tender was uploaded on the Government e- Marketplace Portal, which is a centralized platform facilitating on line procurement of goods and services for Government departments, organizations and public sector undertakings. Petitioners participated in the said tender process and submitted their technical bid on 08.09.2025.

1.3. It is the specific contention of Petitioners that the 2nd Respondent issued binding Guidelines dated 14.11.2024 for engagement of contractual manpower in establishments run by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI) which prescribe the technical eligibility criteria evaluation methodology and mark break-up to be followed while awarding tenders. Bid Document dated 28.08.2025 itself makes reference to and relies upon the Guidelines dated 14.11.2024, thereby expressly admitting that the tender process is governed by the said Guidelines. Consequently, the 3^rd Respondent was bound to strictly adhere to the provisions and framework prescribed under the said Guidelines while framing the tender conditions and while evaluating the bids. Upon opening and scrutiny of the technical bids submitted pursuant to the Tender dated 28.08.2025, the 4^th Respondent Committee shortlisted 15 bids out of 62; on completion of technical evaluation, the 4^th Respondent Committee furnished its report allocating marks to the shortlisted bidders, wherein Petitioners were awarded 77 out of 100 marks.

1.4. It is contended that one o