ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved on rejection of its tender from the technical bid submitted pursuant to the tender bid notice no. 01/2011-12 in connection with the work of metallization of service road as detailed in tender vide Annexure-1. Petitioner is further aggrieved on execution of agreement for the said work with the respondent no. 4 allegedly in violation of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Besides the above petitioner alleges serious commission of forgery and fabrication of documents in allotting the work to the respondent no. 4 whereas the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily. Petitioner accordingly prays for a direction commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the tender bid of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was excluded from the technical bid on the ground that the petitioner was not having the requisite work experience as required under clause 4.5 A(c) of the bid document. It was required that the successful bidder must have experience of work to the tune of 469128 MQ in any one of the preceding five years from the date of tender notice whereas the petitioner had the total work experience of 612312.298 MQ in the year 2009-10, and as such, excluding the petitioner from the technical bid was absolutely illegal and arbitrary. It was further submitted that the respondent no. 3 committed illegality in entering into agreement of the aforesaid work with the respondent no. 4 who had not submitted the tender and the agreement so entered was also violative of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India which prescribes the mode for entering into a Government contract and the agreement so entered with the respondent no. 4 was not expressed in the name of the Governor of Bihar nor the same was executed by the Executive Engineer of the concerned Division being competent authority. 3. Notwithstanding the above, it was submitted that in allotting the work to the respondent no.4 the authorities have fabricated the document and thereby committed forgery. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State on basis of the statements made in the counter affidavit, seriously denied the allegations of the petitioner with respect to the work experience. 3. Notwithstanding the above, it was submitted that in allotting the work to the respondent no.4 the authorities have fabricated the document and thereby committed forgery. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State on basis of the statements made in the counter affidavit, seriously denied the allegations of the petitioner with respect to the work experience. It is contended that on perusal of the work experience vide Annexure-8 (series) it would appear that in none of the preceding five years the petitioner had performed the volume of work as required. It was further submitted that the authorities have considered the work experience and found that none of the certificates of work experience submitted by the petitioner discloses that in any of the year petitioner had completed the requisite work experience. As such, authorities in order to find out the total work experience bifurcated the total work experience of the petitioner in the relevant year in a bonafide manner and found that the petitioner had no requisite work experience in any one year in the preceding five years. It is accordingly submitted that since the petitioner got himself excluded from the technical bid it is not open for the petitioner to assail the agreement entered into with other qualified tenderers. The technical bid and financial bid of the respondent no. 4 was accepted considering four other tenderers who were qualified in technical bid, however, none of the unsuccessful bidder who were qualified in the technical bid assailed the agreement with the respondent no.4. As regards allegation of forgery and fabrication of document although false the same cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding which involves the adjudication of serious disputed question of fact. 5. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 submits that undisputedly the technical as also the financial bid was accepted and the work was allotted to the respondent no. 4 on receiving the advance money for the above has started work as also received the payment to the extent of work done by respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on calculating the work experience as per the certificates reflecting the work performed by the petitioner. 4 on receiving the advance money for the above has started work as also received the payment to the extent of work done by respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on calculating the work experience as per the certificates reflecting the work performed by the petitioner. However, on such arithmetical calculation it was found that in none of the preceding five years of the date of tender notice petitioner had performed the work to the extent required which was apparent from the certificate of work furnished by the petitioner alongwith the bid document. With regard to the submissions of the petitioner with respect to violation of Article 299 of the Constitution of India in execution of the agreement with respondent no. 4, it was submitted that the consideration of the above issue is futile at the instance of the petitioner as he was excluded from technical bid itself. He has nothing to do with the agreement executed by the department in favour of any of the other qualified tenderer. The tender of respondent no. 4 was considered and accepted who was found successful on consideration from among other four tenderers who had qualified in the technical bid and those finally unsuccessful although qualified in technical bid have not challenged the work contract allotted to respondent no. 4, and as such, although agreement has been executed in favour of respondent no. 4 by the competent Chief Engineer as per the relevant stipulation mentioned in the tender document which the petitioner had accepted and submitted his tender. It is, however, submitted that even if there is some minor lacking in the agreement that will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to assail the agreement of the respondent no.4 pursuant to which he has been allotted the work and receiving payments to the extent of work done. It was accordingly submitted that the writ application deserves to be dismissed. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, it would appear that the primary controversy is with respect to the exclusion of the petitioner from the technical bid on the ground of not fulfilling the requisite criteria of the work experience on the part of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that in none of the preceding five years petitioner had the work experience of 469128 MQ. It is not in dispute that in none of the preceding five years petitioner had the work experience of 469128 MQ. The petitioner, however, submits that the authorities have not correctly understood and appreciated the certificates of work experience furnished by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-8 (series), and as such, had there been any confusion they were obliged to call for the petitioner to clarify the issues in terms of clause 22.4 of the bid document. As such, the exclusion of the petitioner from the technical bid was absolutely illegal and arbitrary. In reply, it was submitted that on behalf of the State there was absolutely no confusion as the certificates were clearly mentioning the work experience in the relevant year, and as such, nothing was to be clarified when the document was clearly reflecting the work experience. In my opinion, the calculation of the work experience which apparently on perusal of the certificates as contained in Annexure-8 (series) does not indicate the volume of work in any of the preceding five years of the tender notice as required. However, these are the questions which cannot be gone into a writ proceeding which have been seriously disputed by the parties. The writ Court while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction is not to sit over the decision arrived by the department as an appellate authority, however, any arbitrariness in the action for arriving such decision could be looked into provided fundamental facts are available on record. The question of calculation or the manner of calculation of work experience in absence of any laid down criteria for such calculation can also be not gone into in a writ proceeding provided however the action is not shocking and no prudent man can arrive at such a decision. Therefore, in my view, the decision excluding the petitioner from the technical bid cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary nor can be said to be violative of the provisions of Article 14 & 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioner. Similarly, the allegation of fraud and forgery also cannot be decided in a writ proceeding requiring evidence oral as well as documentary. Similarly, the allegation of fraud and forgery also cannot be decided in a writ proceeding requiring evidence oral as well as documentary. The petitioner being excluded from the technical bid, the subsequent action of the department in considering the tenders of other tenderers who qualified in the technical bid can have no valid justification in law on the part of the petitioner to lay any grievance for allotment of work to any of the tenderers. As regards the decision cited by the parties, in my opinion, none of the parties have disputed the principle of law, however, in the present case the writ petition is based on facts which are seriously disputed. 7. In the result, for the reasons and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the writ application. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed.