HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 25312 OF 2025

O R D E R:

Petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent - District Collector and Chairman, District Outsourcing Committee, Suryapet District in issuing Proceedings dated 20.08.2025, allotting outsourcing work in the Government General Hospital, Suryapet in favour of the 6th respondent - M/s Poorna Agency. According to Petitioner, such allotment is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification dated 13.06.2025, violative of G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.12.2006 and G.O.Rt.No.4271, dated 01.11.2008 and infringes Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner firm states that it is a registered outsourcing agency bearing Registration No. 1541/2003-B, dated 31.12.2003, and has been in existence for over two decades. It has been continuously engaged in providing outsourcing and manpower services to various Government Departments within Suryapet District, including the Government General Hospital, Suryapet and several other departments such as the offices of the District Collector, Medical and Health, Panchayat Raj Engineering and other local administrative wings. It is submitted that petitioner agency has been rendering its services efficiently and in accordance with law, to the satisfaction of all the authorities concerned and there have been no complaints or adverse remarks against its functioning at any point of time. The agency's contracts have been periodically renewed and extended in recognition of its satisfactory performance and compliance with statutory requirements.

2.1. Petitioner states that it was selected and allotted outsourcing work in the 5^th respondent - Government General Hospital, Suryapet where it deployed approximately 136 employees in various departments such as sanitation, maintenance and support services. It is contended that it has been managing the said workforce and ensuring uninterrupted functioning of the hospital to the utmost satisfaction of the hospital administration. It is stated, the contract period for the financial year 2024-25 expired on 31.03.2025. Anticipating renewal, petitioner addressed several representations to respondents, including those dated 29.03.2025, 02.04.2025, 03.04.2025 and 05.08.2025, requesting that its contract be extended from 01.04.2025 till finalisation of the fresh tender process. Petitioner further asserts that in view of the essential nature of the hospital services and to avoid disruption, the 5^th respondent orally instructed petitioner to continue the services of its employees pending further orders from the 2^nd respondent. Acting upon such instructions, petitioner continued to discharge its duties and maintain the hospital staff without interruption.

2.2. It is further stated that while they were waiting for formal renewal orders, the 2^nd respondent issued a fresh Tender Notification dated 13.06.2025 inviting Applications from the eligible outsourcing agencies for empanelment for the financial year 2025-26. Petitioner participated in the said tender process by submitting all the requisite documents, including proof of statutory registrations under the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Act, Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, and turnover certificates for the preceding three financial years. Upon scrutiny of Applications, petitioner's agency was found eligible and was accordingly, included in the list of empanelled agencies published by the 3^rd respondent - District Employment Officer, Suryapet District wherein petitioner's name appeared at Serial No.5 among the 27 selected outsourcing agencies. However, to petitioner's surprise, the 6^th respondent was also included in the same list at Serial No.20, despite being wholly ineligible as per the mandatory eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender conditions. As per Clause 6 of the tender document, every outsourcing agency seeking empanelment must po