Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
Sanjeev Jain – Appellant
Versus
Central Public Works Department – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2673/2025 | CM APPL. 12753/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amrita Panda
For the Respondents: Farman Ali, Usha Jamnal
Contracting authorities possess the administrative discretion to modify eligibility criteria and mandate technical experience for tenders. Enlistment does not confer a vested right to bypass specific work requirements prescribed for future projects, provided such conditions are necessary to ensure competence and do not suffer from manifest arbitrariness.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Rules for Enlistment of Contractors - Eligibility requirements - Whether prior enlistment creates a vested right to participate in future tenders without fulfilling specialized work experience criteria - Power of the state to amend policy to ensure technical expertise in public projects is absolute unless manifest arbitrariness or mala fide intent is proven. (Paras 15, 16, 23)
(B) Judicial Review - Tender conditions and contractual awards - Scope of judicial intervention - Principle of 'play in the joints' - Courts are mandated to exercise restraint in reviewing technical and commercial conditions formulated by expert bodies - Interference is limited to cases of perversity, illegality, or bias. (Paras 25, 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired government engineer previously granted enlistment without the requirement of prior construction experience, challenged a subsequent policy circular that mandated the fulfillment of 'similar works' experience for all contractors. The petitioner contended that as an enlisted contractor, they should be exempt from such additional eligibility criteria for future tenders, asserting that the change was arbitrary and violated their legitimate expectations.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the authority issuing the tender is the best judge of its requirements concerning the nature and technical complexity of the projects. It was observed that the administrative body retains the flexibility to modify eligibility norms in the interest of the public and in accordance with changing project requirements. The court further clarified that mere enlistment does not grant an absolute right to bid on all future tenders if the specific conditions of those tenders are not met.
Issues: The main issue was whether an enlisted contractor, initially granted exemption from prior work experience, could claim a vested right to participate in all future tenders despite subsequent modifications to the eligibility criteria requiring proof of 'similar work' experience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that enlistment only provides registration status and does not supersede the tendering authority's power to prescribe project-specific technical qualifications. Since such conditions were intended to ensure technical competence and project quality, they fell within the scope of legitimate administrative discretion and did not violate constitutional or legal rights.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. enlistment criteria for retired engineers and challenge to subsequent tender eligibility modifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments concerning res judicata and the scope of previous judicial proceedings. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. distinguishing between general enlistment rules and specific tender eligibility conditions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. executive authority to modify tender conditions and policies in public interest. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. limited scope of judicial review in contractual tenders and non-vested nature of enlistment rights. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. dismissal of petition due to failure to demonstrate arbitrariness or irrationality. (Para 29 , 30) |
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been preferred challenging the communication dated 07.06.2024 issued by the respondent, whereby, the requirement relating to prior execution of “similar works” has been made applicable to contractors already enlisted with the Central Public Works Department [“CPWD”] under Rule 6.1.7 of the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in CPWD, 2022 [“Rules of 2022”].
2. The facts of the present case would show that the petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer from the Western Command, Chandimandir, came to be enlisted as a CPWD contractor on 30.06.2023 under Rule 6.1.7 of the Rules of 2022, which permits enlistment of retired Government engineers without insisting upon prior work experience, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
3. The petitioner submits that Rule 6.1.7 of the Rules of 2022 creates a distinct category in respect of retired government engineers and consciously exempts such persons from the requirement of prior construction experience, keeping in view the experience gained by them during the course of service under the Central Government, State Government or Public Sector Undertakings. It is submitted that the very basis of the petitioner’s enlistment is the experience acquired by him during his prolonged service under the Central Government.
4. For the sake of clarity, Rule 6.1.7 of Rules of 2022 is extracted as under:-
“6.1.7 For retired Central Government/State Government/Central or State PSU engineers or architects seeking enlistment for the first time as individual, after one year of their retirement or voluntary retirement from service, enlistment can be considered in any class in Buildings & Roads category without work experience but with prescribed financial soundness, subject his holding a valid PPO in case of government servant and equivalent document in case of PSU employee. Such individuals applying for enlistment should neither be empanelled nor working as arbitrator or consultant in any Central/State Government Department or Public Sector Undertaking or Central/State Government Institution or Autonomous body. Based on initial scrutiny of required documents, provisional enlistment order valid for six months shall be issued with the approval of enlistment authority within one month of online application. Such provisional enlistment order shall be issued without referring the matter to Advisory committee. In case any misinformation is found in the documents submitted by applicant, during subsequent verification/scrutiny, the provisional enlistment shall be cancelled and the applicant shall be debarred for 2 years after issue of show cause notice. The enlistment authority may also initiate criminal case in case of any forgery by lodging FIR against the applicant through Member Secretary of the Advisory Committee.”
5. To substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 6.3.5 of the Rules of 2022 as well as the prescribed application form appended to the Rules of 2022 as Annexure-II. He contends that a conjoint reading of the aforesaid rules would show that a banker certificate and valid PPO are the only do
