THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.16631 of 2009 ORDER: The 2nd respondent issued tender notification, dated 21.06.2009, for the purpose of selecting agencies/establishments to supply 29 Staff Nurses, on contract basis, to work in three shifts up to 04.05.2010, or till regular recruitment is made. The petitioner, the 3rd respondent and certain others submitted tenders. The 2nd respondent accepted the tender of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent. It also seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the tender in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and Sri G.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The salaries for the Staff Nurses, which are to be arranged through outsourcing, are stipulated by respondents 1 and 2. The only component, which the tenderer has to bid, is the rate of commission per month. The 2nd respondent supplied tender form, which contains the relevant clauses. Clause 4 reads as under: “Mention rate of Commission per month.” The 3rd respondent quoted the commission as 83/- per head, amounting to Rs.2,407/-, per month. The petitioner quoted 36.62%. This included the ESI contribution, 13.61% of EPF contribution and service tax of 10.3%. Effectively the commission claimed by him was 3.96%. In terms of percentage, the one, quoted by the 3rd respondent comes to 1.23%. The petitioner contends that according to the guidelines issued by the Government, the commission, to be quoted by a tenderer, must include the EPF, ESI and the service tax, and viewed in this context, 1.23% quoted by the 3rd respondent must include, all the said components. On this basis, the tender of the 3rd respondent was totally untenable. The relevant clause incorporated in the tender is extracted above. It does not make any stipulation, that the commission to be quoted by a tenderer must comprise of the contribution towards ESI, EPF and service tax. The record discloses that the 3rd respondent indicated the said contributions in a separate sheet. There is some ambiguity about the pattern of bidding. Nowhere in the tender notice, it is mentioned that the commission quoted by the tenderer must include the statutory contributions also. The 3rd respondent as well as the department understood the purport of the exercise and proceeded with the matter. Once it emerges that the statutory contributions, or deductions, are standardized, the only relevant factor would be the commission quoted by a tenderer, which is at 3.99%, is obviously much more than the one quoted by the 3rd respondent, which is at 1.23%. Therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality had crept into the process of selecting the 3rd respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:29.10.2009. GJ