JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dinesh Pathak, JJ. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 4/5.01.2022 and also the contract agreement dated 7.01.2022 executed in favour of respondents no.6 & 7 and for a further direction to respondents no.2 to 5 to accept the technical bids of the petitioner and thereafter proceed to consider the financial bids. 2. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner is a registered firm of C category in Public Works Department, Mirzapur. Respondent no.2, Zila Panchayat invited tenders for various works. The petitioner firm applied for the works shown at serial nos.50, 51, 52, 67, 97 and 98. Its technical bid has been rejected in respect of work no.51 and 52 on the ground that it is not registered with the Labour Department. The decision of Technical Bid Committee dated 4/5.01.2022 in shape of office memorandum is under challenge to the extent it seeks to disqualify the bids of the petitioner firm in respect of work no.51 and 52. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Works in respect of which bids were invited are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules, 1984. Initially Rule 18 permitted participation of only approved contractors whose names figure in a register maintained in the office of the Parishad or Kshettra Samiti in Form No.W-1. Rule 18 was subject matter of challenge in Writ-C No.8847 of 2020 Narayan Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others and was decided by a Coordinate Bench by judgement dated 17.3.2020. The Division Bench, after considering Rules 18 and 19, held that the rule framing authority never intended to confine the work contracts of the District Panchayats only to the approved contractors or registered contractors under Rule 18. The relevant part of the discussion from the said judgement is extracted below:- "By force of clause (iii), the terms used but not defined in the Rules shall have the meaning assigned to them in Rule 2 of the Rules of 1965. On going through the Rules aforesaid we noticed that the term approved contractor is not defined therein too. The relevant part of the discussion from the said judgement is extracted below:- "By force of clause (iii), the terms used but not defined in the Rules shall have the meaning assigned to them in Rule 2 of the Rules of 1965. On going through the Rules aforesaid we noticed that the term approved contractor is not defined therein too. In absence of the definition of the term aforesaid, the amplitude of it cannot be extended to cause discrimination among the contractors placed on registered roll of government departments and further to restrict the choice of Panchayat Raj institutions to limited sphere. It is always desirable to have a broad and better choice with a view to achieve and attain better quality of work. A statute is required to be interpreted in the fashion that allows it to be workable at its optimum and also in consonance to the thrust of the complete enactment. The position would have been different, if any restriction would have been given in the Rules of 1984 or by specific assertion the "approved contractor" would have been defined in such a manner to create monopoly in grant of work on contract. In entirety, we have to interpret Rule 18 and the term "Approved Contractor" to satisfy thrust of the Rules. As such, a conjoint reading of Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 1984 and by taking care of other provisions we have to see the intention of the Rule framing authority. For the reasons already given, we are having no doubt that the Rule framing authority was not intending to confine the work contracts of the district panchayats only to the approved contractors or registered contractors under Rule 18." 4. It is submitted that after the said judgement, Rule 18 was amended by the First Amendment Rules, 2020 notified in U.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated 14th July, 2020. The amended Rule 18 reads thus:- "18. It is submitted that after the said judgement, Rule 18 was amended by the First Amendment Rules, 2020 notified in U.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated 14th July, 2020. The amended Rule 18 reads thus:- "18. Registration and qualification of contractors:- In addition to the contractors registered in all the Zila Panchayats, the contractors also registered in the irrigation department, public works departments of the State Government will be eligible to participate in the tenders to be invited in regard to the construction and other works of the Zila Panchayats and in case of the tender being lowest for a particular work, the contractor shall be made to deposit required registration fees in the Zila Panchayat for the purpose of registration by means of a demand draft/e-banking and it shall be compulsory for the Zila Panchayat to register that contractor which one week and ask him to deposit security etc. according to the terms and conditions of the particular tender and Zila Panchayat shall execute an agreement with him. A sum of Rs.10000 (Rs. Ten Thousand only) shall be deposited by contractors as registration fees in the Zila Panchayat." 5. It is submitted that under amended Rule 18, there is no requirement of a person participating in contract to be registered with Labour Department, therefore, the condition in the advertisement relating thereto (Condition No.9) is illegal and contrary to the amended Rule 18. Therefore, the technical bid of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 to 5 Sri V.K. Chandel submitted that the petitioner firm participated with full knowledge of the stipulations under the contract, particularly condition no.9, as it had submitted other documents prescribed under the said clause except the registration certificate with the Labour Department. He further submitted that some contracts have been awarded to respondents 6 and 7 long back and at this distance of time, the petition should not be entertained. He also submitted that the amendment to Rule 18 would not mean that the Zila Panchayat was denuded of its power to prescribe other conditions including the one relating to an applicant being registered with the Labour Department. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. He also submitted that the amendment to Rule 18 would not mean that the Zila Panchayat was denuded of its power to prescribe other conditions including the one relating to an applicant being registered with the Labour Department. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Condition No.9 of the advertisement reads thus:- ^^9- fufonknkrk dks leLr izi= fuf'pr izk:i Vh&4] VhŒ&5] Vh&6 iSudkMZ] th,lVh izek.k i=] Je iath;u rFkk iath;u izek.k i= o vU; vfHkys[k izR;sd fcM ds lkFk yxkuk vfuok;Z gSA^^ 7. The petitioner has admittedly submitted Character Certificate, Solvency Certificate, G.S.T. registration, PAN Card and other documents required to be filed under Clause no.9 and other clauses of the advertisement except the registration certificate with the Labour Department. The issue for consideration is whether in view of amended Rule 18, the requirement of filing certificate of registration from the Labour Department is valid or not. 8. A perusal of unamended Rule 18 reveals that it restricted the right to participate in work contracts of a Parishad or a Kshettra Samiti to a limited class of contractors who were registered in the office of the Parishad or Kshettra Samiti and their name figures in Form No.W-1 maintained in this behalf. It seems that a Government Order dated 16.8.2019 was issued by the State Government whereby all the contractors registered with any of the government department were held entitled to participate in tender floated by district panchayats. The said Government Order was challenged in Writ Petition (MB) No.6025 of 2020, Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. on the ground that it goes contrary to Rule 18. The challenge was upheld on the reasoning that a G.O. can supplement the Rule, but not supplant it. 9. The unamended Rule 18 was again subject matter of consideration in Writ Petition No.8874 of 2020 Narayan Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in context of a challenge made to the same Government Order dated 16.8.2019. This time, another Division Bench deciding the issue by judgement dated 17.3.2020 declared the earlier judgement in Ashok Kumar Singh (supra) to be per incuriam on account of non-consideration of other provisions of the Rules, particularly Rule 19 and held that the rule making authority never intended to restrict the work contracts of the District Panchayats only to the approved contractors or registered contractors under Rule 18. It seems that despite the above clarification made by the Division Bench in Narayan Verma (supra), Rule 18 was amended. 10. The amendment is clarificatory in nature and the effect of the amendment is that now it has unequivocally been provided that apart from the persons registered in Form No.W-1 in the office of Parishad or Kshettra Panchayat, other contractors also registered in the irrigation department and public works departments of the State Government would be eligible to participate in the tenders to be invited in regard to construction and other works by the Zila Panchayats. The amendment in Rule 18 thus lays down the zone within which an applicant should fall to entitle him to participate in the tender. It does not lay down the eligibilities or ineligibilities for the contractors participating in the tender process. In fact, none of the Rules prescribe the same. These were prescribed in the e-tender notice by the respondent Zila Panchayat. 11. In the absence of any statutory provision, the Zila Panchayat was fully empowered to prescribe eligibilities/ ineligibilities that were required to be fulfilled by persons applying for the contract. No doubt, such conditions are to be reasonable and logical and should have nexus with the purpose for which such requirements are prescribed. Since the tender was invited in respect of a work contract, consequently, the prescription of the condition that an applicant applying for the contract should be registered with the Labour Department, in our opinion, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or contrary to Rule 18. In fact, as held above, there is no scope of such a condition coming in conflict with Rule 18 , as it operates in a different field. 12. Apart from the above, we also find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 5 that the contract work having been settled in favour of respondents no.6 and 7 long back in the month of January, 2022 itself, it is not a fit case to interfere. 13. Having regard to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.