IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17642 of 2009 HANDICAPPED REHABILITATION WELFARE SOCIETY NARAYANPUR AT & P.O. NARAYANPUR DISTT.- BHOJPUR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, KAMAL NARAIN SINGH, S/O LATE PARAMHANS SINGH, HANDICAPPED REHABILITATION WELFARE SOCIETY NARAYANPUR, VILL. & P.O. NARAYANPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR…………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT HEALTH COMMITTEE,, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND (VIKAS BHAWAN), ROHTAS (SASARAM) THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM PRESIDENT DISTRICT HEALTH COMMITTEE, ROHTAS, SASARAM 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM SECRETARY, DISTRICT HEALTH COMMITTEE ROHTAS, SASARAM 5. BHOJPUR GRAMIN VIKAS PARISHAD, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHHAWANI MOHALLA, NEAR MOSQUES, BHABHUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MD. ASLAM, SON OF LATE MD. AAINUL HAQUE, R/M CHHAWNI, P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR. …..RESPONDENTS with CWJC No.14582 of 2010 1. JAN KALYAN SAMITI, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHIRAYA TAND KHASMAHAL, ROAD NO.-3, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- JAKKANPUR, DISTT.- PATNA 2. MRS. MAMTA ANAND D/O LATE OM PRAKASH MISHRA SECRETARY, JAN KALYAN SAMITI, CHIRAYATAND, KHASMAHAL ROAD NO.-3, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- JAKKANPUR, DISTT.- PATNA………………………………PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY BIHAR, PARIWAR KALYAN BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-14 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRESIDENT, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, ROHTAS, SASARAM 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-SECRETARY, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, ROHTAS, SASARAM 5. MANTHAN PARYAVARAN SANRAKSHAN EVAM SAMAJIK SANSTHAN, LAKSHAMI VATIKA, MOHA- CHAUK TOLI, ARRAH, BHOJPUR 6. BHOJPUR GRAMIN VIKAS PARISHAD CHHAWANI MOHALLA, NEAR MASJID, BHABHUA, KAIMUR 7. HANDICAPPED REHABILITATION WELFARE SOCIETY, AT & P.O.- NARAYANPUR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR, ARRAH. 8. NIRDHAN KALYAN KENDRA AT AND P.O.- PARWALPUR, NALANDA. - 2 - 9. SACHIN FOUNDATION, A/24, ROAD NO.1, SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA 10. NAV SHRAMIK KALYAN SAMITI, GRAMIN BANK COLONY RAUJA CANAL ROAD, FAJALGANJ, SASARAM ……..RESPONDENTS For the petitioners : M/s J.P. Singh, Ravi Bhushan Pd. Sinha and Baban Roy, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Braj Kishore Pd. Sinha, G.P.-3, Nadim Seraj and Shailesh Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 10/ 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents in both the above mentioned writ petitions which were taken up together, as the points involved are common. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the short tender notice issued by the District Magistrate-cum-President, District Health Committee, Rohtas (respondent no.3) and the Civil Surgeon-cum- Secretary, District Health Committee, Rohtas (respondent no.4) published in local Hindi daily newspaper Dainik Jagran on 06.08.2009 (Annexure-1) for outsourcing various works such as cleaning, washing, food supply, generator, ambulance in various hospital in the rural areas of Rohtas district and also for directing the respondents to allow the petitioners of both the cases to continue their works as per the earlier tender dated 09.07.2008 issued by respondent nos.3 and 4 on the basis of which work order was given to the petitioners on 14.10.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners of both the cases claims that in tender dated 09.07.2008 and in the order of - 3 - authorities dated 29.09.2008 as well as in the work order dated 14.10.2008 no time limit was given and the petitioners of both the cases continued the work satisfactorily as would be apparent from the appreciation certificate (Annexure-6 series of C.W.J.C. No.17642 of 2009 and Annexure-9 series of C.W.J.C. No.14582 of 2010). He further submits that all of a sudden without cancelling petitioners’ work order and without giving any opportunity to them advertisement dated 06.08.2009 (Annexure-1) was issued by the respondents authorities within one year of the petitioners’ work order. In view of the aforesaid advertisement seven tenders were received and private respondents were appointed after tender by outsourcing vide order dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure-8 to I.A. No.2587 of 2010 of C.W.J.C. No.17642 of 2009). Thus he submits that the said act of the respondents authorities were absolutely illegal and perverse and were fit to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that various complaints (Annexure-C series) were received against the petitioners and warning was also given to them due to their unsatisfactory works and they were directed to improve. He further avers that advertisement was duly made on 06.08.2009 (Annexure-1) in which seven tenders were received, including the tender of the petitioners, whereafter on the basis of merit, private respondents were appointed by outsourcing vide order dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure-8 to I.A. No.2587 of 2010) although they had not - 4 - provided any experience certificate. He further states that since the petitioners of both the cases took part in tender and lost, they cannot legally challenge the same. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the work order dated 14.10.2008 issued in favour of the petitioners of both the cases did not contain any limit with respect to the period for which the petitioners were appointed, but it cannot be legally assumed that work order was given to the petitioners for eternity. So far the complaints (Annexure-C series) received against the petitioners and warning given to them as claimed by the respondents are concerned, the same are neutralized by the various appreciation certificates issued by the authorities themselves after completion of a year’s work by the petitioners of both the cases. 6. It may be noted that the petitioners of both the cases had specifically claimed that private respondents had not produced any experience certificate, although it was essential for being appointed for the said purpose. It is also apparent that although private respondents were appointed on 06.03.2010, they were unable to work as the petitioners are continuing till date because of the stay order granted by this court. The respondents were also unable to give any explanation as to why the said short tender notice was issued without cancelling the work order of the petitioners of both the cases and without giving any opportunity to them for hearing them in the said - 5 - matter. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the short tender notice issued by respondent nos.3 and 4 on 06.08.2009 (Annexure-1) published in local Hindi daily Dainik Jagran for outsourcing various works as mentioned above is hereby quashed. Similarly the appointments of private respondents which was stayed during the pendency of these writ petitions vide order dated 19.04.2010 are also quashed. 8. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents authorities that as more than two years have lapsed since the work order was given to the petitioners of both the cases on 14.10.2008, they must issue a fresh short tender notice for the said purpose in accordance with law in which the petitioners as well as the private respondents will also be allowed to participate and the entire process must be completed within three months. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)