JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for calling of the records and quashing the Limited Tender Document for Outsourcing of Security Services at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘AIIMS, Rishikesh’ for brevity) Reference No. 24/642/Security Services/2022-Rish (Admin) dated 08.06.2022, i.e. Annexure-1 to the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner, which is having a license to provide security facilities to institutions, was prohibited/prevented from applying in the tender in view of the fact that the said petitioner did not have the sponsor/permission of the Directorate General of Resettlement. 2. Mr. Anupam Kishore Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, very elaborately argued and submitted that limiting tender only to agencies certified and sponsored by the Directorate General of Resettlement is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, it should be struckdown. He relied extensively on the reported cases of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashbihari Panda Etc. vs. State of Orissa, (1969) 1 SCC 414 ; Comptroller & Auditor-General vs. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, (2003) 2 SCC 349 , and the reported case of G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director Government of India Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Department of Public Enterprises and Ors, CLT (2009) Supplementary 137, a judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, rendered by the then Acting Chief Justice of that Court. 3. It is very emphatically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the tender is limited only to the DGR sponsored schemes, then it would be violative of the fundamental rights. 4. We have carefully examined the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashbihari Panda Etc. vs. State of Orissa (supra). That is a case, where the provision of Section 10 of Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 was challenged. Therefore, the facts of that case are different. As far as the second case, i.e. Comptroller & Auditor-General vs. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta (supra) is concerned, it is on the question of the tender issued for the purpose of conducting audit by qualified Chartered Accountants, and the tender notice issued to the partnership firm. Therefore, the facts of that case are different. As far as the second case, i.e. Comptroller & Auditor-General vs. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta (supra) is concerned, it is on the question of the tender issued for the purpose of conducting audit by qualified Chartered Accountants, and the tender notice issued to the partnership firm. The case is distinguishable in the sense that the proprietorship firm or the Chartered Accountant, not being the member of the firm, were not disqualified from conducting audits. The facts are distinguishable in this case. 5. We take note of the reported judgment of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has very categorically held that the power of judicial review should be carefully exercised in a case of tender. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (supra) at Paragraph 94 has laid down the principles that guide the exercise of judicial review in a case of tender. The said principles are as follows: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 6. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 6. In this case, we have examined the facts of the present case and especially the insertion of Clause-1 to the Tender Call Notice. It is apparent from the document supplied by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing as Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India that on 13.09.2018, the Government of India, Ministry of Industries and Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises had issued an Office Memorandum regarding appointment of Security Personnel in Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) from Ex-servicemen Security Agencies sponsored by the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR). At Paragraph-2 of the said Office Memorandum, the guidelines are given. We consider it appropriate to take into consideration the exact guidelines. The same are as follows:- “(i) In order to prevent exploitation of Ex-servicemen (ESM) and to effectively implement their rehabilitation process, the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR) has evolved a scheme whereby retired services officers and State Ex-servicemen Security Corporations desirous of obtaining contracts from CPSEs to provide manpower for security are empaneled. In this system, DGR provides a panel of qualified Ex-servicemen Security Agencies and State ESM Security Corporations functioning under the directives of Ministry of Defence. (ii) All administrative Ministries/Departments are requested to issue necessary instructions to the CPSEs under the administrative control requiring manpower for security services, to obtain a panel of qualified Ex-servicemen Security Service Providers only from the Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), West Block-IV R.K. Puram, New Delhi without going to open tendering process. (iii) However, to ensure that CPSEs get more cost effective and efficient security agencies, DGR will sponsor more than one security agency so that the CPSE concerned would have a choice in choosing a suitable outfit keeping in view their specific requirements. (iv) The service charges chargeable by security agency will be negotiable between the CPSE and the agency concerned subject to guidelines issued vide MoD OM No. 28(3)/2012-D (Res-1) dated 09.07.2012 and amendments made therein from time to time. (v) Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare is the nodal Ministry/Dept. (iv) The service charges chargeable by security agency will be negotiable between the CPSE and the agency concerned subject to guidelines issued vide MoD OM No. 28(3)/2012-D (Res-1) dated 09.07.2012 and amendments made therein from time to time. (v) Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare is the nodal Ministry/Dept. for issuance of comprehensive guidelines on the subject matter.” 7. Thereafter, on 22.03.2021, another Office Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Defence (Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare), wherein a direction is given in pursuance and with respect to letter dated 13.09.2018 that all the CPSEs will requisition security services only through DGR, i.e. without going to open tendering process and DPEs subsequent to OM No. DPE-7(4)/2007-Fin dated 4th May, 2020 which has instructed all the CPSEs to register themselves and ensure mandatory on boarding of vendors on GeM portal, etc. 8. Thus, it is apparent from the records that the Government of India, through Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Industries and Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, has thought it appropriate to safeguard the interest of ex-servicemen directing that all the Central Public Sector Undertaking/Enterprises, which need security, should only go for limited tendering, and will not resort to open tendering proposals. 9. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that such a limited tendering, inviting applications only from the DGR sponsored institutions, or security services will not be equivalent to inviting tenders from registered firms of Chartered Accountants, not including an individual Chartered Accountant in the scope of tenders. We are of the opinion that an intelligible differentia has been created by the Union of India through the through Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Industries and Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises to protect the interest and livelihood of ex-servicemen as only through DGR sponsored schemes, the Security Service providers have been invited to submit their tenders. As far as the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director Government of India Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Department of Public Enterprises and Ors is concerned, we are not inclined to follow the same. 10. We do not find any merit in the present writ application, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands rejected. No order as to costs. 10. We do not find any merit in the present writ application, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands rejected. No order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued to the parties, as per rules.