JUDGMENT & ORDER : L.S. Jamir, J. The Nagaland Education Mission Society Rastriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (for short 'RMSA") invited bids from eligible Government Registered Contractor (Class-1) of NPWD/CPWD/MES/Firm/Company/Association of Individual/Proprietorship for strengthening of 57 number of Government High School in various schools under the State of Nagaland by Notice Inviting Tender dated 17-08-2016. 2. The two writ petitions are challenging the work orders both dated 25- 11-2016 issued to the private respondents for strengthening of Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima in Kohima District and the Government High School, Sechu (Zubza) in Kohima District respectively on the ground that by the comparative statement dated 20-09-2016, the petitioner was recommended for allotment of work for the Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima in Kohima District and the Government High School, Sechu (Zubza) in Kohima District. 3. As both the writ petitions have common cause of action and the relief sought for, being identical, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Narola, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Also heard Mr. K. Angami, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in both the writ petitions. The respondent Nos. 3 and 6 in both the writ petitions were served notice by Dasti Service. However, none appears for the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 despite service of notice. 5. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being qualified, participated in the NIT dated 17- 08-2016 in respect of Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima in Kohima District and the Government High School, Sechu (Zubza) in Kohima District respectively. The respondents opened and verified the tender documents and thereafter, a comparative statement was prepared wherein, in respect of Kohima District, the petitioner was recommended for acceptance with regard to the Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima in Kohima District which is the subject matter of W.P (C) No. 3 (K) of 2017. Further, in the same comparative statement, the petitioner was again recommended for acceptance with regard to Government High School, Sechu (Zubza) in Kohima District which is the subject matter of W.P (C) No. 2 (K) of 2017. Further, in the same comparative statement, the petitioner was again recommended for acceptance with regard to Government High School, Sechu (Zubza) in Kohima District which is the subject matter of W.P (C) No. 2 (K) of 2017. He submits that despite the recommendation made in the comparative statement, the respondents had in a very whimsical manner ignored the recommendations made in the comparative statement and the respondent No. 3 who is the Minister-in-Charge of School Education had made a list of his own choice thereby giving approval for issuing work order in respect of respondent No. 6 in both the writ petitions. The said decision of the respondent No. 3 was a sou moto decision and thereafter, the impugned work orders both dated 25-11-2016 in both the writ petitions were issued to the respondent No. 6. In that view of the matter, he submits that there is no transparency and fair play in the decision making process of the respondents and therefore, the impugned work orders should be set aside and quashed. 6. Mr. K. Angami, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that the respondents are not bound by the recommendation made in the comparative statement and that the NIT further prescribes that it is not obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue work order to the tenderers who makes the lowest bids. On the basis of records, learned Government Advocate submits that after the comparative statement was made, a review of the said comparative statement was held on 07-11-2016 and it was thereafter that the concerned Minister who is also the Vice President of RMSA had taken a decision with regard to allotment of work for strengthening of 57 numbers of School in various districts of Nagaland. In that view of the matter, he submits that it was not the sole decision of the respondent No. 3 but the same was based on the recommendation made in the review meeting held on 07-11-2016. 7. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. This Court has considered the comparative statement which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B. Therein, with regard to Government Higher Secondary School in Kohima District which is the subject matter of W.P (C) No. 3 (K) of 2017, the Serial No. 5 was recommended for acceptance. 8. This Court has considered the comparative statement which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B. Therein, with regard to Government Higher Secondary School in Kohima District which is the subject matter of W.P (C) No. 3 (K) of 2017, the Serial No. 5 was recommended for acceptance. The Serial No. 5 indicated in the comparative statement is the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 3 (K) of 2017. Further, with regard to the Government High School, Sechu (Zubza) which is the subject matter of W.P (C) No. 2 (K) of 2017, the comparative statement indicates that the petitioner has been recommended for acceptance as he has quoted the lowest rate @ 0.45 % below SOR, 2013 NPWD which is found to be workable. 9. Learned Government Advocate has produced the records as directed by this Court. This Court on perusal of the same has noticed that after the comparative statement was put up, the Chief Secretary, Nagaland who is also the Chairman, Executive Committee of Nagaland Education Mission Society (NEMS) has made a noting as under:- "It is seen that in several tenders the Committee has not made any specific recommendation. It the tenderer/bidder has quoted the lowest rate, he should be recommended provided he is otherwise eligible. If all tenderers/bidders have quoted the same rate, the tenderer/bidder who has the best track record should be recommended. The Committee may review the matter and give specific recommendations supported by reasons." 10. In terms of the noting made by the Chief Secretary/Chairman, Executive Committee, NEMS, it is seen that the Committee had a review meeting on 07-11-2016 and had thereafter, arrived at the following decisions:- "1. The Committee agreed to accept the DAC/EMD which were submitted through NSCB/RRB/ICCI/HDFC/Axis Banks. Having being satisfied with the reply received from the respective Bank Managers in regard to the question of whether " is enlisted as Nationalized Bank?" 3. After through scrutiny of the bids, following criteria for selection was agreed upon: (a) Quoted rate above SOR 2013 may be avoided as PAB does not encourage enhancement of rate once approval takes place (b) Rate as per SOR 2013 is workable. However, in may places/schools bidders have quoted the same rate so discretionary approval of higher authority is required and sought for (c) The (below) quoted rate, if quoted much below the acceptable limit, should be avoided. However, in may places/schools bidders have quoted the same rate so discretionary approval of higher authority is required and sought for (c) The (below) quoted rate, if quoted much below the acceptable limit, should be avoided. However, depending upon the distance between the District Head Quarter and the sites access of the site to, raw materials, recommendations is made on bids (below) SOR 2013 (d) As per the terms and conditions published on 17th August, 2016, point No. 12 clearly states "Acceptance of the lowest tender is not obligatory" and so, this has been adhered to in some instances." 11. A consideration of the minutes of the review Committee would indicate that the review committee has brought no major changes to the earlier recommendation made in the comparative statement. Further, it is to be borne in mind that insofar as the petitioner in both the writ petition is concerned, there was a specific recommendation for acceptance of the petitioners in respect of Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima in Kohima District and the Government High School, Sechu (Zubza) in Kohima District. Further, the noting of the Chief Secretary would also indicate that he has made an observation that in several tenderers, the committee has made no specific recommendation. This is not a case in respect of the petitioner in both the writ petitions. 12. On perusal of the records as produced by the learned Government Advocate, this Court further finds that when the respondent No. 3 prepared the list for allotment of work order in respect of 57 schools, no specific reason has been given as to why the recommendations made in the comparative statement has been rejected. If there were reasons, the respondent No. 3 should have made specific noting supported by cogent reason as to why the recommendation made in the comparative statement in respect of the petitioner was not accepted. This is not the case in hand. 13. In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no transparency and fair play on the part of the respondents while taking a decision to award the work orders both dated 25-11-2016 to the respondent No. 6 in both the writ petitions. 14. 13. In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no transparency and fair play on the part of the respondents while taking a decision to award the work orders both dated 25-11-2016 to the respondent No. 6 in both the writ petitions. 14. Accordingly, the action of the respondents stands vitiated and the impugned work order dated 25-11-2016 issued to the M/S Eastern Associates, NPW/Cl-1/686, Kohima, Nagaland with regard to strengthening of Government Higher Secondary School Kohima in Kohima District and the work order dated 25-11-2016 issued to M/S Krosal Angami, NPW/Cl-1/112, Kohima, Nagaland with regard to strengthening of Government High School Sechu (Zubza) in Kohima District are both set aside and quashed. 15. The matter is now remanded back to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the recommendation made in the comparative statement and thereafter pass appropriate orders. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court by the respondents. 16. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 17. No costs.