ORDER : The present case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the Notice Inviting E-Tender No. 03/2020-21 issued by the Superintendent, Hazaribagh Medical College Hospital, Hazaribag (respondent no. 3) and uploaded in the website on 10.09.2020 for outsourcing of agency for complete sanitation and housekeeping with collection, segregation, storage and safe transportation of municipal waste and segregation of biomedical waste at Hazaribag Medical College Hospital, Hazaribag (hereinafter referred to as the “present NIT”) through e-tenders invited in two parts system (Technical and Price bid) for a minimum period of one year or extendable up to three years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh (the respondent no.4) had invited Notice Inviting E-Tender No. 04/2019-20 from eligible and reputed service providers for outsourcing of Agency for complete sanitation and housekeeping at different hospitals/offices including Hazaribag Medical College Hospital, Hazaribagh under the Health Department, Hazaribagh through e-tenders in two parts system (Technical and Price bid) for a minimum period of one year or extendable up to three years. The petitioner participated in the said tender and after being declared L-1, he was allotted the said work vide letter no. 1935 dated 25.10.2019. An agreement to that effect was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 on 26.10.2019. The petitioner was doing the work without any complaint from the side of the respondents, however the respondent no.3 has issued the present NIT vide e-tender uploaded in the website on 10.09.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations dated 10.09.2020 and 11.09.2020 before the respondent authorities for redressal of grievances requesting cancellation of bid document no. 03/2020-21, payment of its outstanding dues as well extension of the said work order, but the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter and are proceeding ahead with the present NIT. It is further submitted that before issuing the present NIT, the agreement of the petitioner was neither rescinded nor cancelled by the respondents and till date the petitioner is doing the work in question. It is further submitted that before issuing the present NIT, the agreement of the petitioner was neither rescinded nor cancelled by the respondents and till date the petitioner is doing the work in question. It would be evident from condition-14 of the work order issued in relation to NIT no.- 04 of 2019-20 that the said work order was valid for one year from the date of agreement and on finding the work satisfactory, the period could be extended for another year and since there was no complaint against the quality of the petitioner’s work, the respondents were required to give extension of the said work. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been working since November, 2019 and an amount of Rs. 2 crore (approx.) is unpaid to it by the respondent authorities, however without paying the due amount of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 has issued the present NIT just to cause wrongful loss to it. The petitioner has been diligently and earnestly providing the services during the Covid-19 pandemic without any interruption or complaint and as such it had a legitimate expectation that on account of its satisfactory service, the period of agreement would be extended as provided under the work order dated 25.10.2019. The respondents are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the work order which inter-alia provide for extension of period of the agreement in favour of the petitioner on rendering satisfactory services. However, without having recorded any dissatisfaction as against the services provided by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 has invited fresh offers for the same service which is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that there was a clear condition in the work order dated 25.10.2019 that the period of the said work order would be valid for one year and as such the petitioner cannot claim for renewal of the same. It is submitted that the present NIT has been issued for selecting new agency for doing the work in question and in the meantime the petitioner has been allowed to continue with the execution of the work as per its agreement till the expiry of the work order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even during subsistence of the work order of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 has arbitrarily issued a fresh NIT for the same work and as such the same is liable to be quashed. 6. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the letter dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical, Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the Principals/Superintendents of various medical colleges and hospitals within the State of Jharkhand have been informed that after selection of new agency, the process of abolishing the old system should be initiated in such a way that the management of the medical colleges and hospitals do not get affected. Thus, it appears that the purpose of starting new process during the subsistence of the agreement made with the petitioner is only to maintain smooth functioning of services under various categories at different medical colleges and hospitals under the Health Department, Government of Jharkhand. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that its agreement has been terminated during the period of its subsistence, rather the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is still doing the work in question. It is evident that the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 was executed on 26.10.2019 and as such in view of clause- 14 of the work order, the period of the work order will expire on 25.10.2020 i.e. just after six days and thus I do not find any infirmity in the notice inviting tender no. 03/2020-21. 7. One of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that since there is no complaint against its work, the agreement is liable to be renewed for further period of one year as provided in the agreement. 8. I am not convinced with the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Condition-14 of the work order issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 8. I am not convinced with the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Condition-14 of the work order issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 4 in relation to NIT no.- 04 of 2019-20, stipulates that the said work order will remain effective for one year from the date of the agreement and the same may be renewed for further period of one year if the work is found satisfactory. In NIT No. 04/2019-20, there was also a stipulation that the tender was for a minimum period of one year or extendable up to three years if mutually agreed by both the parties. In view of the clear stipulation in the tender notice as well as in the work order issued in relation to NIT no.- 04 of 2019-20, the respondents were not under legal obligation to renew the agreement of the petitioner. A careful reading of the “clause of renewal” would make it abundantly clear that there was no absolute or indefeasible right of renewal in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it has no vested right to compel the respondents to renew the work order as the renewal was the choice of the respondents on finding its work satisfactory. It is not a case where the work order of the petitioner has been prematurely terminated on the ground of any allegation/complaint made against the petitioner, rather the respondents simply do not want to continue with it. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had the legitimate expectation that the agreement would be renewed after expiry of the term, is not convincible since there was clear stipulation in the work order as well as in the tender notice that the agreement may be renewed on the satisfaction of the respondents. The other limb of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that certain amount of the petitioner in relation to the work in question is lying due with the respondents and as such the petitioner will suffer wrongful loss if the agreement is not renewed in its favour. Even if the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to be true, the same does not create a right in favour of the petitioner to claim renewal of the work order. Even if the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to be true, the same does not create a right in favour of the petitioner to claim renewal of the work order. However, the petitioner can claim the due amount from the respondents, if any, by taking recourse of law. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any ground to interfere with the Notice Inviting Tender no. 03/2020-21 under the writ jurisdiction of this Court which is otherwise plenary in nature. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.