M/S Edutest Solutions Private Limited Thru.Authorized Signatory Mr.Abhishek Sinha vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy.Directorate of Technical Education Lko and Ors.

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3070 of 2025

Petitioner :- M/S Edutest Solutions Private Limited Thru.Authorized Signatory Mr.Abhishek Sinha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy.Directorate Of Technical Education Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Paavan Awasthi,Gaurav Mehrotra,Shreyash Shukla,Utkarsh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K. Singh Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party nos.1 to 4.

¶6

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of blacklisting passed against it by opposite party no.2.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is apparently unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and is even otherwise unsustainable on principle of proportionality. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that a contract was agreed between the petitioner and opposite parties under which the petitioner was required to ensure smooth conduct of examination which was initially scheduled to be held from 16.03.2024 to 22.03.2024 and the last date of registration for such exam was 29.02.2024. Firstly, the last date for registration was extended to 04.03.2024 and then on 07.03.2024, the dates of the examination were also changed to 19.03.2024 to 22.03.2024 but this was acceptable to the petitioner, however, the petitioner vide its letter dated 06.03.2024 while accepting the aforesaid situation clearly put the opposite parties to notice that considering the paucity of time anymore suggestions/ changes would not be feasible and that this will ensure that exam process sanctity is maintained and delivery happens as per service level. Petitioner then undertook identification and earmarking of exam centers and wrote to opposite party no.2 for police verification of the same annexing a list of such centers. On 07.03.2024, the petitioner informed opposite party no.2 that centers for examination were booked and audited technically and physically. The final center list was attached. It was also

¶8

made clear that any amendment at last minute is not possible owing to paucity of time to prepare center allocation, servers and center readiness. In the meeting on 06.03.2024 itself, the examination dates were further changed to 19.03.2024 to 23.03.2024. Accordingly, a request was made on 07.03.2024 itself by the petitioner to postpone the exam to a later date somewhere in April, 2024 to ensure a smooth and error free conduct of the exam as the change of the dates of examination meant that the petitioner would have to completely restart the center booking from scratch for the new date i.e. 23.03.2024. It will have cascading effect on all subsequent activities like candidate mapping and server management. Due to the insufficient time in hand for all the required readiness and preparations, the exams were proposed to be postponed as aforesaid. Further communication was made in this regard by the petitioner to opposite party no.2 on 08.03.2024 pointing the difficulties faced on account of extension of examination dates to 23.03.2024 again making a similar request for postponement of exam which was not acceded to and ultimately, not only the contract of the petitioner was cancelled but the petitioner has been blacklisted. The submission is that changes were brought about by opposite party no.2 at its own end inspite of the resistance by the petitioner in this regard and prior notice that this would have an adverse bearing on holding the examination on time. Therefore, it is quite unreasonable that the petitioner should be blacklisted. Learned counsel submitted that he is not challenging the cancellation of contract for the moment but so far as blacklisting is concerned the result of it is that the petitioner is not able to participate in any tender process on account of blacklisting by opposite party no.2 which veritably brings the business of the petitioner to a standstill and these aspects have not been taken into consideration while passing the order of blacklisting that too for a period of three years therefore in the facts of this case the impugned order according to him is not sustainable. It is also the submission of petitioner's counsel that several recitals have been mentioned in the blacklisting order which were not present in the show cause notice.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner has been blacklisted in Bihar also and that the fault was entirely that of the petitioner.

¶10

We are of the view that matter requires consideration.

¶11

Let pleadings be exchanged between the parties within six weeks.

¶12

List thereafter.

¶13

Considering the facts as noticed hereinabove, prima facie , the question as to whether blacklisting of the petitioner is justified in the facts of this case that too for a period of three years requires consideration on the principle of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality and also the considering the impact of blacklisting of the petitioner's business activities with other institutions/ organizations, we, accordingly, stay the order of blacklisting, however, with the caveat that this will not entitle the petitioner to participate in any tender process initiated by opposite party nos.2 to 4 but the impugned order will not come in the way of the petitioner to participate in any other tender initiated by any other organization/ institution.

¶14

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Shanu/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Edutest Solutions Private Limited Thru.Authorized Signatory Mr.Abhishek Sinha v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy.Directorate of Technical Education Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Edutest Solutions Private Limited Thru.Authorized Signatory Mr.Abhishek Sinha v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy.Directorate of Technical Education Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajat Sahai vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry Finance Income Tax Deptt., New Delhi and Another

Raj Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Chief Secy. Civil Secretariat Lko. and 3 Others

Ramraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector/ Dist. Magistrate Dist. Amethi and 4 Others

Himadri Trade Mart Pvt.Ltd., Lko. Thru. Representative, Mr. Ashish Kumar Agarwal vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. of State Tax), Lko. and Another

M/S Shree Radha Raman Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Amit Singh vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and Another

M/S Lakhimpur Enterprises Thru Partner Taranjai Singh Ajmani vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 6 Others