ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Both the writ petitions having preferred against common Order No. 56, dated 28th March, 2003 and the respondents being same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, Pandra, Ranchi (for short Jharkhand Marketing Board) issued impugned office order No. 56/Ranchi, dated 28th March. 2003, whereby and whereunder, the 4th respondent was selected for the security job and it was ordered to execute agreement with the said respondent. According to the petitioners the 4th respondent being ineligible as per notice invited for Short Term Quotation, the decision to allot the security job to the 4th respondent is illegal. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the Managing Director, Jharkhand Marketing Board issued advertisement in the daily Hindi Newspaper "HINDUSTAN" Ranchi Edition on 9th June, 2002 calling for Short Term Quotation for appointment of Security Agency and preparation of panel. The parties were asked to enclose documents and give certain information, such as . (i) Certificate of incorporation with the Registrar of Companies; (ii) Documents relating to payment of minimum wages, as fixed by the Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi; (iii) Monthly salary and allowances of the Security Guards; (iv) Certificate of registration with the Employees State Insurance Corporation; (v) Recent renewal registration certificate issued by the Labour Department. 4. According to the petitioners, the rate quoted by the 4th respondent was such low that on the basis of such rate even minimum wages, as prescribed by the State Government cannot be paid to its employees. It was further pleaded that the 4th respondent having defalcated in depositing the Provident Fund amount of the security personnel, has been served with a notice under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952. 5. According to the 3rd respondent, a panel was prepared. After exclusion of the first person in the panel, the person at Sl. No. 2 has been given chance for one year. If the performance of 4th respondent who is at Sl. No. 2 in the panel is found unsatisfactory, the next agency in the panel, i.e. the petitioner of WP (C) No. 1606 of 2003 will be considered. 6. After exclusion of the first person in the panel, the person at Sl. No. 2 has been given chance for one year. If the performance of 4th respondent who is at Sl. No. 2 in the panel is found unsatisfactory, the next agency in the panel, i.e. the petitioner of WP (C) No. 1606 of 2003 will be considered. 6. The condition of paying at least minimum wages to its staff (security personnel) as per notification of the State Government was put because in some cases criminal prosecution has been filed by the Labour Department for not paying the minimum wages to the security staff, as notified by the Government. Though all the procedures were followed for preparation of panel has been mentioned in the counter affidavit, but the allegation made by the petitioners that the rate quoted by the 4th respondent is such that from the meagre amount even the minimum wages as prescribed by the Government cannot be paid to its staff (security personnel) has not been disputed. 7. The 4th respondent, in its counter affidavit enclosed the relevant document which it purported to have been filed along with the quotation for supply of security personnel to the Jharkhand Marketing Boards Headquarters at Ranchi. Annexure-C series, one of the documents as enclosed with the quotation supply dated 14th June, 2002, filed in WP (C) No. 1606 of 2003, shows that the 4th respondent shown the minimum wages as approved by the Bihar and Jharkhand Government, which is the basis of its quotation. But in the counter affidavit, it has not been stated that the quotation of rate is such that it will meet the requirement relating to payment of minimum wages to its staff (security personnel), as per the rate prescribed by the Government. 8. It has not been disputed that the Provident Fund to its employees having not been paid by the 4th respondent, it has received a notice under Section 17A of the Employees Provident Fund (Misc. Provisions) Act, 1952. 9. In the circumstances, the authorities before issuing the order in favour of 4th respondent should have taken care of the past performance and reputation of the 4th respondent. Provisions) Act, 1952. 9. In the circumstances, the authorities before issuing the order in favour of 4th respondent should have taken care of the past performance and reputation of the 4th respondent. However, taking into consideration the fact that the order issued in favour of 4th respondent is only for one year i.e. upto 31st March, 2004 and from now only 6-1/2 months are left, instead of interfering with the Order No. 56, dated 28th March, 2003, the respondents are directed to be vigilant with regard to grant of order for the next year (2004-05) before issuance of order out of the same panel, already prepared. By doing so they must take into consideration the past performance and reputation of each Agency including the fact whether one or other is defaulter of any kind of revenue, which they are supposed to pay under the provisions of any statutory Law/Act. 10. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Petition, disposed of.