JUDGMENT Manoj K. Tiwari, J. - In both the Writ Petitions, petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by Technical Evaluation Committee, whereby his technical bids, submitted in respect of Package No. UT-04-04 & UT-402 in response to Notice Inviting Tender dated 04.12.2019, have been rejected. 2. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020, petitioner s technical bid has been rejected on following two grounds: (i) Legal status of petitioner firm is not clear, inasmuch as, in the Certificate of Registration, as Class A Contractor issued by Uttarakhand Public Works Department, only two persons are shown as partner of partnership firm; while, the partnership deed submitted by the petitioner shows that there are four partners. (ii) Petitioner had shown one Mr. Deepak Pant as technical staff; while, the same person has been shown as technical staff by another bidder, namely, M/s Girdhar Singh Adhikari, as its staff in some other work. 3. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 677 of 2020, petitioner s technical bid has been declared as non-responsive on the sole ground that legal status of petitioner firm is not clear, as in the Registration Certificate of the firm, there are two partners; while, in the partnership deed, there are four partners. Since this ground of rejection is common in both the Writ Petitions, therefore, validity of the said ground for rejecting petitioner s technical bid is being dealt with earlier. The second ground of rejection, which is there in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020, shall be considered later. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: Petitioner is a Partnership Firm, registered as Class A Contractor with Uttarakhand Public Works Department. Uttaranchal Rural Road Development Agency, Dehradun issued a Notice Inviting Tender in respect of different works, including (i) the work of up-gradation of motor road from Gallagoan to Devalimafi (Package No. UT04-04) and (ii) up-gradation of motor road from Banku to Sulla-Pasam (Package No. UT-402). Petitioner submitted bids for the aforesaid two works alongwith all requisite documents. The technical bids of the petitioner were declared to be responsive. Subsequently, on the complaints made by rival bidders, petitioner s technical bid were reevaluated and were declared to be non-responsive. Petitioner submitted bids for the aforesaid two works alongwith all requisite documents. The technical bids of the petitioner were declared to be responsive. Subsequently, on the complaints made by rival bidders, petitioner s technical bid were reevaluated and were declared to be non-responsive. One of the reason assigned for declaring petitioner s technical bids as non-responsive, in respect of both the works, is that legal status of petitioner firm is not clear, as in the Registration Certificate of the firm, there are two partners; while, in the partnership deed, there are four partners. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of his technical bids, petitioner has approached this Court by filing two Writ Petitions. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020 is in respect of work Package No. UT-04-04; while, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 677 of 2020 is in respect of Package No. UT-402. 5. Defence taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020 is that, in the Registration Certificate submitted by the petitioner, there are only two partners; whereas, in the partnership deed, there are total four partners, therefore, there is difference in the partners mentioned in these two documents. 6. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 submits that the Technical Evaluation Committee was justified in rejecting petitioner s technical bid, as it violated Clause 4.2 (1) of Instruction to Bidders (I.T.B.). Clause 4.2 (1) of Instruction to Bidders is reproduced below: 4.2 All bidders shall include the following information and documents with their bids as stated in Section 4 - Qualification Information, unless otherwise stated in the Bid Data Sheet: 1. Copies of original documents defining the constitution or legal status, place of registration, and principal place of business; written power of attorney of the signatory of the Bid to commit the Bidder; 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 677 of 2020, there is a reference to Clause 3.1 of the M.B.D. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that due to typing mistake, I.T.B. (Instruction to Bidders) has been mentioned as M.B.D. He further submits that he is not relying on Clause 3.1 of I.T.B., as it is not attracted to the present case. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that due to typing mistake, I.T.B. (Instruction to Bidders) has been mentioned as M.B.D. He further submits that he is not relying on Clause 3.1 of I.T.B., as it is not attracted to the present case. Since there is a reference to Clause 3.1 of Instruction to Bidders, therefore, the same is reproduced below for ready reference: 3.1 This Invitation of Bids is open to all bidders as defined in the Bid Data Sheet. Any materials, equipment and services to be used in the performance of the Contract shall have their origin in the eligible sources. The applicant should be a private or an individual legal entity or any combination of them with a formal intent to enter into an agreement or under an existing agreement in the form of a Joint Venture (JV). Government owned enterprises may only participate if they are legally and financially autonomous, operate under commercial law and are not a dependent agency of the implementing agency, Borrower or subborrower. 8. In the opinion of this Court, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has rightly not placed reliance upon Clause 3.1 of Instruction to Bidders, as the said Clause provides that a private or an individual legal entity or any combination of them with a formal intent to enter into an agreement or under an existing agreement in the form of a Joint Venture may submit bids. Thus, this Clause does not support the case of respondent no. 2. 9. Perusal of Clause 4.2 (1) of Instruction to Bidders reveals that it requires all bidders to furnish certain information/documents with their bids, including copies of original documents, defining the constitution or legal status of the bidder. It is nobody s case that petitioner withheld any information/document or submitted incorrect/ misleading information. It is admitted to respondent no. 2 that petitioner had supplied copy of the partnership deed with his technical bid, therefore, Clause 4.2 (1) of Instruction to Bidders cannot be pressed into service for rejecting petitioner s technical bid. 10. The ground taken for rejecting petitioner s technical bid is that his legal status is not clear. The expression legal status has not been defined in the Bid Document or in the Instruction to Bidders. 10. The ground taken for rejecting petitioner s technical bid is that his legal status is not clear. The expression legal status has not been defined in the Bid Document or in the Instruction to Bidders. There is no condition anywhere in the Bid Document/Instruction to Bidders that any variance in the composition of the partnership firm, as shown in the partnership deed, with that mentioned in the Registration Certificate, shall entail rejection of the technical bid. 11. In such view of the matter, mere induction of a new partner in the partnership firm cannot be sufficient ground for rejecting petitioner s technical bid. 12. There is another aspect of the matter. Legal status of a partnership firm does not change merely by induction of a new partner; although, it may amount to change in composition of a partnership. In other words, a partnership firm remains so upon induction or removal of a partner so long as two or more individuals remain as partner in the firm. It is not the case that petitioner had furnished incorrect or misleading information regarding composition of partnership firm. It is an admitted position that factum of induction of new member was disclosed by the petitioner in his technical bid. Thus viewed, the ground taken by the respondent no. 2 for rejecting petitioner s bid does not stand to reason. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two new partners were inducted in the petitioner firm on 01.07.2019 and intimation regarding such change in composition of partnership was given to the Registering Authority i.e. Engineer-In-Chief, Uttarakhand Public Works Department on 04.07.2019, however, due to pendency of S.L.P. filed by petitioner against cancellation of his registration, the Registering Authority did not incorporate change of composition of partnership firm in petitioner s Registration Certificate for road construction. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the document supplied to petitioner by the office of Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department under Right to Information Act, which is on record as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 17.07.2020 filed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020. Perusal of the said document indicates that information regarding intimation of two new partners was given by the petitioner to the Registering Authority on or before 09.07.2019. 14. Perusal of the said document indicates that information regarding intimation of two new partners was given by the petitioner to the Registering Authority on or before 09.07.2019. 14. Since petitioner had given timely information to the Registering Authority regarding change of composition of the partnership firm, therefore, petitioner cannot be penalized for the inaction, if any, on the part of the Authorities of Uttarakhand Public Works Department in doing the needful in the matter. 15. Thus, the first ground taken for rejecting petitioner s technical bid in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020, which is the only ground taken for rejecting petitioner s technical bid in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 677 of 2020, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 16. Accordingly, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 677 of 2020 is allowed and the order impugned in the said Writ Petition, passed by Technical Evaluation Committee is quashed. 17. Another ground taken for rejecting petitioner s technical bid in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020 is that one of the technical personnel for construction, shown by petitioner as employee in his technical bid, has also been shown as technical personnel in the technical bid submitted by another bidder i.e. M/s Girdhar Singh Adhikari. 18. Clause 4.4 B (b) of Instruction to Bidders provides as under: (b) Each bidder must demonstrate: availability for construction work, either owned, or on lease or on hire, of the key equipment stated in the Bid Data Sheet including equipment required for establishing field laboratory to perform mandatory tests, and those stated in the Bid Data Sheet; (ii) Availablity for construction work of technical personnel as stated in the Bid Data Sheet. (iii) availability of liquid assets and/or credit facilities, net of other contractual commitments and exclusive of any advance payments which may be made under the Contract, of not less than the amounts specified in the Bid Data Sheet; 19. The stand taken in paragraph no. 3 (b) of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 is reproduced below: 3. That in reply to the contents of para 1 of the writ petition it is stated here that the Technical Evaluation Committee pursuant to its decision dated 24-01-2020 declared out of five bidders; three bidders namely (1) M/s Laxmi Dutt Binwal (2) M/s Panchwati Construction and (3) M/ Dalip Singh Adhikari, as responsive bidders. 2 is reproduced below: 3. That in reply to the contents of para 1 of the writ petition it is stated here that the Technical Evaluation Committee pursuant to its decision dated 24-01-2020 declared out of five bidders; three bidders namely (1) M/s Laxmi Dutt Binwal (2) M/s Panchwati Construction and (3) M/ Dalip Singh Adhikari, as responsive bidders. It is pertinent to state here that subsequent to the technical evaluation of the bids initial 05 working days are kept for obtaining the complaints, if any, from the contractors; however, in the aforesaid period, one complaint by M/s Laxmi Dutt Binwal was received against M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari. Consequent to the aforesaid complaint, the bid of M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari was again technically evaluated and the complaint was found correct; for the following reasons:- (a) ............ (b) As per the clause 4.4 B (b) (ii) of MBD of the Bidder must be included 01 degree holder Civil Engineer and 02 diploma holder Civil Engineers. Since the technical staff shown by the petitioner wherein Shri Deepak Pant, S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Pant (Diploma Holder Civil Engineer) is also shown by M/s Girdhar Singh Adhikari in his technical staff for the contract of Tankapur-Tawaghat to Singda Motor Road and since the one technical staff cannot work for two different firms together, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid technical fault the bid of the petitioner has been declared as Non Responsive . 20. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has referred to page no. 42 of Bid Document, which is enclosed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. Relevant extract of the Bid Document, on which reliance has been placed, is reproduced below: Note: (a) The bidder must produce the documentary evidence in support of his owning the above equipment: 4.4 B (b) (ii) The Number of Technical Personnel Qualification and Experience will be as follows: 1. The Technical Personnel for construction are: S. No. Technical Position Personnel Qualification Number Experience in Road Works 1 A. Project Manager Degree Holder in Civil 1 2 Years 2 Site Engineer Diploma Holder In Civil Engineering 2 5 Years 21. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel has further referred to Clause 9 of the General Conditions of Contract (page no. 60 of the Bidding Documents) dealing with personnel. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel has further referred to Clause 9 of the General Conditions of Contract (page no. 60 of the Bidding Documents) dealing with personnel. Clause 9.1 to 9.4 of General Conditions of Contract, on which reliance was placed on behalf of respondent no. 2, are extracted below: 9.1 The Contractor shall employ for the construction work the key personnel including technical personnel named in the Contract Data or other personnel approved by the Engineer. The Engineer will approve any proposed replacement of technical personnel only if their relevant qualifications and abilities are substantially equal to those of the personnel stated in the Contract Data. 9.2 The Contractor s personnel shall appropriately be qualified, skilled and experienced in their respective trades or occupations. The Engineer shall have authority to remove, or cause to be removed, any person employed on the site or works, who carries out duties incompetently or negligently and persists in any conduct which is prejudicial to safety, health or the protection of the environment. 9.4. If the Engineer asks the Contractor to remove a person who is a member of the Contractor s staff or work force, stating the reasons, the Contractor shall ensure that the person leaves the Site within seven days and has no further connection with the Works in the Contract. 9.4 The Contractor shall not employ any retired Gazetted officer who has worked in the Engineering Department of the State Government and has either not completed two years after the date of retirement or has not obtained State Government s permission to employment with the Contractor. 22. From combined reading of different Clauses of the Bid Document, Instructions to Bidders and General Conditions of Contract, it is apparent that each bidder should have one degree holder Civil Engineer and two diploma holder Civil Engineers on its rolls as employee, who should be serving exclusively under him. Such technical personnel can be replaced, with the approval of the Engineer, by other technical personnel, only if their qualifications and abilities are substantially equal to those mentioned in the Contract Data. 23. In the reply given by petitioner to the complaint made by M/s L.D. Binwal against him, petitioner has admitted that Mr. Such technical personnel can be replaced, with the approval of the Engineer, by other technical personnel, only if their qualifications and abilities are substantially equal to those mentioned in the Contract Data. 23. In the reply given by petitioner to the complaint made by M/s L.D. Binwal against him, petitioner has admitted that Mr. Deepak Pant, his technical staff, is also serving in the firm of M/s Girdhar Singh Adhikari; although, he has attempted to explain this by stating that both the firms are executing work in the same locality, however, the fact remains that Mr. Deepak Pant is not serving exclusively under the petitioner; but, is also serving under another bidder. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mr. Deepak Pant had given an affidavit stating that he had never worked with the firm of M/s Girdhar Singh Adhikari, however, the said argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained in view of the admission made by petitioner, in his reply to the complaint, before the Technical Evaluation Committee. 25. It is settled position in law that, in contractual matters, employer is the best judge of essential & nonessential conditions of eligibility during tender process and judicial interference in such matters has to be minimal. In the present case, the employer has rejected petitioner s technical bid for not having a technical personnel serving exclusively under him, therefore, this Court will not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the employer. For executing the work of such magnitude, services of technical personnel would be necessary and if a technical personnel is serving part-time under two or more contractors, then there would be a reasonable apprehension that quality and pace of the work would suffer. 26. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with second ground of rejection of petitioner s technical bid in respect of work of Construction of Gallagaon to Devalimafi M.R. Upgradation . 27. Accordingly, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 674 of 2020 fails and is dismissed.