JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant who filed the writ petition in OWP No. 568 of 2015 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 09.06.2015. 2. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that e-tendering process was initiated by respondent nos. 1 and 2 pursuant to E-Tender invitation dated 16.01.2015. The 3rd respondent being the lowest bidder, its tender was accepted. The same was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the 3rd respondent lacked the eligibility criteria for participation in the tender process. It is the contention of the appellant that Clause 11 of the Tender Notice dated 16.01.2015 prescribed the eligibility for the candidates to submit the e-tender which states that the bidder should have successfully completed one similar nature of work costing not less than Rs., 518.04 Lacs from 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2014 or two similar nature of works each costing not less than Rs. 414.43 lacs from 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2014 in any Government/ Semi Government/ Autonomous body. It is the principle contention of the appellant that the 3rd respondent produced certificate to satisfy the eligibility criteria wherein the cost of works is shown as Rs. 3,34,41,772/- and the actual completion date as 30.05.2014. Therefore, the said amount being less than Rs. 518.04 Lacs, the 3rd respondent is disqualified. 3. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the stand of the respondent-University, which filed affidavit stating that 3rd respondent had initially completed the allotted work in April, 2014, however, after completion of the building it was felt that a Porch needs to be constructed for convenience of students and faculty and the work was completed by the 3rd respondent in the month of October, 2014 for a total amount of Rs. 5,79,96,987/- and in the light of the said stand taken by the University, which is the tendering authority, the 3rd respondent was qualified and its tender being the lowest, the same was accepted. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the contract allotted to the 3rd respondent being for Rs. 3,34,41,772/- as per the certificate issued by the University, the 3rd respondent is not eligible. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the contract allotted to the 3rd respondent being for Rs. 3,34,41,772/- as per the certificate issued by the University, the 3rd respondent is not eligible. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the admitted position that the University in a composite contract allotted other works and the same were also completed by the 3rd respondent in October, 2014 and the total sum paid for the said contract was Rs. 5,79,96,987/- which being more than 518.04 lacs, the 3rd respondent was very well eligible to be considered and the same was rightly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. No costs.