JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. The first respondent invited bids for the supply of manpower. The relevant condition in the tender document provided as follows: “1 - Experience: - I. The Tenderer should have at least 03 years (2009 onwards) of experience in related field, providing unskilled manpower (Male & Female) in a Large Hospital/Large Organization such as Reputed Laboratories/Research Institute/Teaching Institute, Medical Institutions or Nursing Homes of minimum 50 beds engaging more than 100 unskilled manpower in any single organiztion and having minimum turnover of Rs.30.00 lacs per annum of the same business.” 2. The bid submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee of the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. The said decision has been communicated to the petitioner by the Senior Administrative Officer of the SGPGI by a communication dated 7 July 2014. The said communication records that the bid has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of supplying manpower of 100 persons in a single organization for a period of three years and that the petitioner had not submitted the evidence of meeting this requirement while submitting the bid in response to the tender notice. 3. The first submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the requirement which is specified in the tender notice of supplying at least 100 unskilled manpower in any single organisation' qualifies only nursing homes and not the institutions mentioned earlier such as hospitals, laboratories, research institutes or teaching institutes. This submission cannot be accepted. The first respondent while inviting its bids has specified that at least three years' experience, to be counted from 2009, of providing unskilled manpower to specified institutions is necessary. The tender condition was that, at least 100 unskilled persons had to be supplied in any single organisation. This requirement of supplying 100 unskilled workers to a single organisation applies to all institutions named in the relevant clause of the tender document, extracted above. The tender condition was that, at least 100 unskilled persons had to be supplied in any single organisation. This requirement of supplying 100 unskilled workers to a single organisation applies to all institutions named in the relevant clause of the tender document, extracted above. Accepting the submission of the petitioner would mean that whereas a supply to a nursing home is to meet the requirement of a minimum of 50 beds and of 100 persons, a supply to a large institution does not have to meet the requirement and the tenderer would be eligible even if he were to supply much less, conceivably even 1 or 2 workers. This would defeat the very purpose and object of the clause. The plain meaning of the clause must be given effect to. The construction which has been placed by the first respondent on the clause is consistent with the plain reading which is that the bidder should have supplied at least 100 persons to any single organization. That requirement must apply to all the organizations named in the relevant clause, noted above. The clause is not fulfilled by a bidder supplying less than 100 persons to a single organisation and cumulatively aggregating the total manpower supplied under different contracts with separate organizations. 4. The second submission which has been urged is that clause 23 of the tender document provides that a successful tenderer shall have to provide semiskilled manpower. This condition, it is urged, is contrary to the experience stipulated in the earlier clause of the bid document. This submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner submitted its bid, conscious and aware of the tender requirement. The petitioner having submitted a bid cannot now be heard to challenge the tender conditions after participating in the tendering process. Even independently, clause 1 of the bid document specifies a requirement of eligibility. On the other hand, clause 23 specifies the nature of the work which has to be performed by the selected bidder. Eligibility is a norm which is required to be fulfilled at the threshold and cannot be construed as qualifying the nature of the work which is to be performed. 5. Finally, we may note that it has been placed on the record on behalf of the first respondent that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. Eligibility is a norm which is required to be fulfilled at the threshold and cannot be construed as qualifying the nature of the work which is to be performed. 5. Finally, we may note that it has been placed on the record on behalf of the first respondent that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. During the course of the tendering process, a letter was addressed to the bidders on 15 May 2014 including to the petitioner informing him that it did not appear that he had fulfilled the tender requirement. However, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner responded by his letter which was undated. The petitioner relied upon the experience certificates submitted by him in respect of three institutions. These are not annexed to the petition & were suppressed. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon experience certificates issued by the first respondent on 24 December 2010, 16 August 2011 and 27 May 2014 which are annexed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The first certificate relates to the period from 13 November 2009 to 24 December 2010. The second certificate relates to the period from 13 November 2009 to 16 August 2011. The third certificate is dated 27 May 2014 and refers to the number of workers supplied by the petitioner to the first respondent right from 13 November 2009 to 6 May 2014. A reading of all the three certificates, upon which reliance has been placed, does not indicate that the petitioner had supplied 100 persons to the first respondent consistently over a period of three years as required by the tender specification. In fact, the certificate dated 27 May 2014 was obviously not part of the bid which was submitted by the petitioner which was much earlier. Hence, looked at from either perspective, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 7. Finally, we may observe that the extent of judicial review in regard to tender conditions is limited. The Court will not ordinarily interfere with the wisdom of or the policy underlying the tender conditions. There is no breach of any statutory provisions. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.