COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner herein, who has a licence to supply outsourcing manpower to various organisations of the State, had participated in an nd e-tender issued by the 2 respondent dated 18.10.2018 for supply of th manpower to the 4 respondent-institution. Upon being declared as the successful bidder, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the th

4 respondent on 01.11.2018 to supply manpower. Upon noticing that a fresh e-tender notice has been issued for supply of manpower without terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this court by way of W.P.No.6350 of 2020.

2. This Court by order dated 12.03.2020 had observed that if the e-tenders are not finalised, the finalisation of tenders would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

th

3. Thereafter, the 4 respondent issued letter dated th

18.09.2020 in favour of the 5 respondent, which is now challenged by way of W.P.No.17926 of 2020.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the outsourcing contract given to the petitioner under the agreement dated 01.11.2018 was valid till 01.11.2022, and as such, a fresh tender could not have been called for, for supply of outsourcing manpower while the contract of the petitioner was in force and no proceedings for termination of the said contract had been passed. The petitioner also took the plea that the quotation of the th

5 respondent was not in compliance with the requirements of the tender, which stipulates that the tenderers cannot quote below the minimum wages payable either by the State or by the council, whichever is higher.

th In these circumstances, the tender of the 5 respondent could not have been accepted and consequently, the petitioner should be continued under the agreement dated 01.11.2018.

th

5. The 5 respondent, after notice, had filed his counter. The th

5 respondent submits that the petitioner while challenging the issuance th of fresh tender under W.P.No.6350 of 2020 and award of work to the 5 respondent under W.P.No.17926 of 2020, had suppressed the crucial fact that the petitioner had also participated in this tender and its technical bid itself has been disqualified. He submits that on account of suppression of fact, the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence by this Court.

th The 5 respondent also states that the alleged defects pointed out by the th petitioner are not correct. The 5 respondent submits that the agreement of the petitioner was only up to 01.11.2019 for a period of one year and th not till 01.11.2022 as claimed by the petitioner. The 5 respondent also th submits that the initial mistake made by the 5 respondent in quoting wages lower than the minimum wages under Category-3 and Category-4 th jobs had been rectified and no person supplied by the 5 respondent under the outsourcing contract would be paid wages, which are below the minimum wages stipulated.

6. Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:

th The 4 respondent had issued a work order dated 18.10.2018 wherein it was stated that “the approval will remain valid for a period of one year with provision for further extension up to three years subject to satisfactory performance”. This would mean that the contract would be initially for a period of one year from 01.11.2018 up to 01.11.2019 and the further three year period would expire only on 01.11.2022. He further submits that Annexure-3 of the financial bid requires the bidders to set out the salaries that are to be paid to the outsourced employees. The jobs, which are to be filled by the outsourced employees are divided into four categories with the stipulation that the employees appointed under category-3 or category-4 jobs need to be paid minimum wages prevailing in A.P., Rs.20,000/- per month fixed by the council for category-3 and Rs.16,000/- per month fixed by the th council for category-4 employees. However, the 5 respondent had quoted figures, which were lower than the figures which are permissible under categorie