Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2527 (RAJ)

Global Services v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-11-16

GOVIND MATHUR, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT Govind Mathur, J. - This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by learned Single Bench by in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14116/2016. 2. By the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench vacated the interim order dated 02.12.2016 on the count that the appellant-petitioner failed to implead the Employment Directorate, Jaipur or the Employee Department, Government of Rajasthan as party respondent. 3. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that under a notification dated 28.09.2016, the office of the Principal Medical Officer-cum-Secretary, Raj. Medicare Relief Society, Government District Hospital, Hanumangarh invited applications from the eligible placement agency/non-Government organisation for supply of men power subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 4. It is pertinent to notices that notification aforesaid nowhere contains any condition that a placement agency is required to be registered with the Department/Directorate of Employment. Under the notification concerned, the need is only for registration of the placement agency as per provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. 5. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Bench was that in the prescribed format for proposing the services, it is to be stated that the Registration Numbers with Directorate of Employment are mentioned, which is otherwise not required under the notice inviting tender. 6. Learned Single Bench after hearing the parties, passed the following order: "By this writ petition the petitioner-firm has essentially raised a grievance about the condition mentioned in the tender in question that a bidder should be registered as placement agency with the Employment Directorate, Jaipur. The contention of petitioner-firm is this that the Employment Directorate, Jaipur has stopped the registration of placement agencies since 2012 and, therefore, as the petitioner-firm is not a registered placement agency, it is deprived from submitting its bid in response to the tender in question issued by the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner-firm regarding non-registration of the placement agency is with the Employment Directorate, Jaipur and not with the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, however, the Employment Directorate, Jaipur or the Employment Department, Government of Rajasthan have not made party respondents in this writ petition. Looking to the above fact, the interim order passed by this Court on 02.12.2016 is hereby vacated. Stay petition is disposed of." 7. Looking to the above fact, the interim order passed by this Court on 02.12.2016 is hereby vacated. Stay petition is disposed of." 7. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner to challenge the order aforesaid is that the learned Single Bench erred while arriving at the conclusion that the Directorate of Employment is a party necessary to the proceedings and in absence of that no relief, as prayed for, could have been granted. 8. It is asserted that as a matter of fact the finding given by learned Single Bench is not supported by reason as to how the Directorate of Employment is the party necessary to the proceedings. According to learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, the challenge is given by the appellant-petitioner to the condition imposed by the respondent No.2 and, as such, it is only the respondent No. 2 that is to defend condition referred in the format prescribed to forward the proposals. 9. Issue notice. 10. Mr. Anil Bhansali, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. 11. On behalf of respondent No. 3 Mr. Trilok Joshi is already appearing being Caveator. 12. Heard learned counsels. 13. It is not at all in dispute that the appellant-petitioner is challenging an assertion made in format prescribed to forward the proposal to extend services. The format is made by the respondent No. 2 and the Department of Employment is nothing to do with that. The submission of the appellant even in the writ petition is that such a condition is not a requirement of tender notice. 14. Looking to this factual background, we do not find any just reason to treat the Directorate of Employment as a party necessary to the writ proceedings. 15. In view of it the vacation of the interim order by learned Single Bench merely on that count, in our considered opinion, is not correct. 16. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.10.2017 is set aside. The interim order dated 02.12.2016, as a consequence is restored. 17. The writ petition be listed before learned Single Bench for fresh adjudication of the stay application which is to be decided on its other merit.