Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 778 (ALL)

KANCHAN JAN KALYAN SAMITI v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-03-20

A.P.SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli, J. Heard Shri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. The petitioners contend that the imposition of condition no.2 in the impugned communication dated 30.12.2016 violates Article - 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, if the petitioners had been shortlisted earlier and selected, there is no occasion to alter the status and entitlement of such selected consultancy organisations including the petitioners by excluding them on a ground which was not inexistence in the advertisement itself. Shri Pandey has invited the attention of the court to the advertisement of 2014 which is annexure - 2 to the writ petition, to urge that such consultancy services were to be taken from support organisations and they were entitled to apply for one or more than one districts. He submits that there was no restriction that they will not be given more than three clusters. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further invited the attention of the Court to the subsequent advertisement in the year 2015 which is annexure - 4 to the writ petition, where again the same condition has been indicated without any restriction. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned communication dated 30.12.2016 is contrary to the advertisement and is even otherwise violative of Article - 14 of the Constitution of India, as no valid or rational nexus has been shown for limiting the award of services to three clusters, hence the order dated 30.12.2016 deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioners had already applied against the advertisements and their selection process had already commenced and they had been shortlisted. The orders which have been issued subsequent to 30.12.2016, that are annexure - 5 to the writ petition, the name of the petitioner no.2 appears in the list. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances it is absolutely clear that the petitioners have been found to be eligible and entitled, yet on account of the condition imposed in the impugned communication dated 30.12.2016, the petitioners would now stand excluded from getting the benefit of providing consultancy services for more than three clusters. This, accordingly to Shri Pandey, amounts to changing the rules of the game after the advertisement had already been issued and the selections had been undertaken by the respondents. This, accordingly to Shri Pandey, amounts to changing the rules of the game after the advertisement had already been issued and the selections had been undertaken by the respondents. We have considered the submissions raised and what we find is that the advertisements mention that the support organisations can apply for one or more than one districts. The said advertisement nowhere compels the respondents to limit or otherwise expand the number of clusters which are to be given to particular selectees. There is no bar placed on the authority of the respondent - State Project Management to limit the number of clusters to be awarded to one agency. The issue of changing the rules of the game does not arise at all. It rather helps in allowing other agencies to participate and makes the procedure more inclusive and prevents any monopoly in favour of a single agency. There is, thus, no violation of Article - 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, it is a State project for hiring of consulting services through support organisations. The offer which has been invited by way of an expression of interest, therefore, does not bind the respondents to award as many clusters as the petitioners may choose to apply for. Consequently, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are bound by their terms and conditions and they cannot restrict the same is unacceptable. Secondly, the orders dated 03.01.2017 and 09.01.2017, which are filed as annexure - 5 to the writ petition, clearly refer to the order dated 30.12.2016 and the same is also subject to the said condition. The petitioners have also not questioned the correctness of the allotment orders dated 03.01.2017 & 09.01.2017. Consequently, we do not find any reason to exclude the applicability of the communication dated 30.12.2016 which clearly contains a reason to the effect that it is on the basis of past experience that the aforesaid condition has been imposed. Learned counsel wanted this Court to enter into the reasonableness or otherwise of such a reason indicated in Clause - 2 of the communication dated 30.12.2016. We are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no irrationality in the same as no adverse material could be demonstrated before us to take a different view in the matter. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned communication dated 30.12.2016. We are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no irrationality in the same as no adverse material could be demonstrated before us to take a different view in the matter. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned communication dated 30.12.2016. No fundamental rights or legal rights of the petitioners are impinged upon by the imposition of such a condition. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.