JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The respondents had floated tender for up-gradation of Thanakalan Bhakra Road to Proian Road Km.0/0 to 28/675 under Pradhanmanti Gram Sadak Yojana-II to (Batch-I), for the year 2016-17 package No. HP-12-110 (SH: C/o Retaining Wall, breast wall, C/o drain/T, CC Pavement and providing logo boards and Kms. stone etc. including 5 years maintenance in Km. 0/0 to 28/675. In pursuance thereof the petitioner in joint venture with Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Chhaju Ram, Resident of Village and P.O. Sunehra, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. offered its technical bid. Also the petitioner deposited tender fee of Rs.5000/- besides deposited a sum of Rs.21,36,000/- as earnest money. However, the technical bid of the petitioner stood rejected by the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner stands aggrieved by the action of the respondent in rejecting his technical bid for execution of the tendered work aforesaid. The rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner-Company stands anvilled upon condition No.4.4A, 4.4D(i), condition whereof stands embodied in the standard bid documents, condition whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “4.4.A. To qualify for award of the Contract, each bidder should have in the last five years:- (a) Achieved in any one year a minimum financial turnover (as certified by Chartered Accountant, and at least 50% of which is from Civil Engineering construction works equivalent to amount given below: (i) 60% of amount put to bid, in case the amount put to bid is Rs.200 lakhas and less. (ii) 75% of amount put to bid, in case the amount put to bid is more than Rs.200 lakhs. The amount put to bid above would not include maintenance cost for 5 years and the turnover will be indexed at the rate of 8% per year. If the bidder has executed road works under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in originally stipulated completion period, the financial turnover achieved on account of execution of road works under PMGSY shall be counted as 120% for the purpose of this sub-clause. In Naxal/Left Wing Extremist Affected Districts, the figures of 60% and 75% in (i) and (ii) above would be replaced by 50%. 4.4.D (i) If bidder is a Joint Venture, the partners would be limited to three (including lead partner). Joint Venture firm shall be jointly and severally responsible for completion of the project. Joint Venture must fulfil the following minimum qualification requirement. 4.4.D (i) If bidder is a Joint Venture, the partners would be limited to three (including lead partner). Joint Venture firm shall be jointly and severally responsible for completion of the project. Joint Venture must fulfil the following minimum qualification requirement. (i) The lead partner shall meet not less than 50% of qualification criteria given in sub-clause 4.4.A(a) & (b) of ITB above.” Where within in consonance therewith the petitioner/company stood enjoined to prior thereto hold experience of executing work similar to the one qua which the relevant tender stood floated also the previous work of the petitioner was enjoined to hold a minimum value of Rs.323.69 lacs whereas the previous work done by the petitioner standing pegged at a value of Rs.67.68 lacs besides in conjunction with the aforesaid inhibition standing fastened qua the petitioner, the trite factum of the extant tender standing floated for metalling and tarring work whereas the previous tarring work executed by the petitioner holding a value of Rs.6.00 to 7.00 lacs also rendered it to fall abysmally below the enjoined condition qua the previous pari materia work holding a value of Rs.323.69 lacs. Consequently, the technical bid of the petitioner stood rejected. The counsel for the petitioner submits qua his previous tarring works falling within the ambit of the relevant condition. Also he contends qua with the petitioner holding the necessary machinery besides where-withals to execute the tendered work no rigid insistence ought to be made upon him qua his with absolute rigidity begetting compliance vis-a-vis the relevant condition of its holding experience ensuing from its previous work holding a pari materia monetary value qua the tendered work. However, the aforesaid contention for invalidating the action of the respondents in rejecting its technical bid warrants its standing discountenanced tersely when its validation would tantamount to this Court nullifying the relevant condition which stands invoked by the respondents concerned for barring it from obtaining award of the relevant work significantly when nullification thereof would run counter to the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492 and in Henz India (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492 and in Henz India (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 443 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has validated the embodying by the entity concerned of reasonable un-arbitrary conditions for enabling it to process besides finalize the competing bids of bidders who claim award of the relevant tendered work. Consequently, the relevant condition which stands invoked by the respondents concerned to oust the petitioner from claiming award of the relevant tendered work when holds there-within a reasonable un-arbitrary condition of work experience of competing bidders, also when the aforesaid relevant condition has a close nexus with satisfactory completion of the tendered work by the successful bidder thereupon, with gross work inexperience of the petitioner in the relevant tendered work dehors its purportedly holding where withals also its holding the relevant equipment to execute it would not foster it to hold any leverage to unseat besides dislodge a competing rival who begets satiation of both mandatory conditions qua value of the previous work done besides qua his/their holding the relevant enjoined work experience, satiation whereof by it is a predominant factor significantly when a public work involving public expenditure of huge sums of money imperatively warrants its optimum satisfactory completion, for completion whereof experience is a preeminent factum. Consequently, the foisting in the relevant condition the imperative necessity of work experience of the competing bidders is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, contrarily its embodiment in the relevant condition is both reasonable besides intra vires the Constitution. In sequel, there is no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.