Dismissed

Deepak Kumar v. Bokaro Steel Plant Through Deputy General Manager Contract Cell And Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2016WPC/3911/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his disqualification in a technical bid due to lack of specified experience. The court held that the respondent's power to set uniform terms is within its domain and, since the criteria were met by others and no malafide was shown, no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner hasn't fulfilled specific eligibility criteria; the writ petition is dismissed.

Deepak Kumar Vs Bokaro Steel Plant Through Deputy… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 3911 of 2016

¶2

Deepak Kumar .......Petitioner.

¶3

vs.- 1. Bokaro Steel Plant through Deputy General Manager (Contract Cell), Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Deputy General Manager (Operation)Continuous Casting Soap (CCS), Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand ....Respondents

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Adv. For the Respondents : M/s. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Adv. Shresth Gautam, Adv.

¶6

3/1.8.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

In the tender dated 23rd April, 2016 (Bid Invitation) Annexure-4 for inviting offers for execution of the work of “Assistance in shift working of CCS, Ladle Furnace 2” petitioner participated along with others. He has been disqualified in the technical bid on failure to fulfill the conditions prescribed at Clause VI-C, which is follows:

¶8

“ The similar nature of work shall be as : Contractor must have done jobs like 1. (Technological cleaning OR industrial housekeeping) AND 2. Metallic jam (cutting/removal/cleaning) by lancing.”

¶9

Petitioner admittedly does not have experience of both kinds of work (Technological cleaning OR industrial housekeeping) And Metallic jam (cutting/removal/cleaning) by lancing.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner has tried to develop his case by relying upon the previous bid invitation dated 11th May, 2015 where the relevant Clause VI-C provided for experience of similar nature of work like (Technological Cleaning OR Industrial Housekeeping) OR Transportation of Metallic items AND Metallic jam (cutting) by lancing. It is submitted that the alternative experience criteria prescribed in the previous bid would have enabled the petitioner to be successful in the technical bid in the instant tender notice of 23rd April, 2016, but has been changed deliberately to favour few interested bidders. Petitioner was earlier

¶11

¶12

executing similar work in 2014-15.

¶13

Terms and conditions of bid invitation or tender notice dated 23rd April, 2016 are not under challenge in the present writ application. They apply uniformly to all interested bidders. Laying down of terms and conditions are within the domain of employer and are subject to judicial review on limited grounds. That however is not a challenge in any case in the present matter. If the petitioner has not been found to fulfill the specific eligibility criteria of having executed similar nature of work as per Clause VIC specification/eligibility criteria as quoted hereinabove by the impugned communication at Annexure-5 dated 20th June, 2016, the action of the respondent cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity or non application of mind or actuated by malafide either.

¶14

Therefore, no case for interference is made out by the petitioner in the instant case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶15

(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J)

¶16

Deepak Kumar v. Bokaro Steel Plant Through Deputy General Manager Contract Cell And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar v. Bokaro Steel Plant Through Deputy General Manager Contract Cell And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Shankar Dayal Vs Central Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager And Ors.

Sahdeo Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Permanand Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bijay Kumar Alias Bijay Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bhado Oraon Vs Revenue Department

Somnath Tirkey Vs Revenue Department