M/S U-TECH SERVICE vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 13142 of 2026
M/s. U-Tech Service, Puri Petitioner
….
-versus-
State of Odisha, Department of
Health and Family Welfare,
Bhubaneswar and another
Opposite Parties
….
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajjeet Roy, Advocate
For Opposite Parties-State : Ms. Biswabara Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE
AND
R JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
HON’BLE M
J U D G M E N T
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 6 May, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The petitioner is an intending bidder to participate in the
tender in question floated by the Chief District Medical and Public
Health Officer, Puri for outsourcing of Techno Managerial Personnel
Services at the Government Institutions, Puri.
Page 1 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026
2. The Request for Proposal (RFP) with such nomenclature
indicates that the said tender was floated for selection of an agency
to undertake Paramedics, Nursing and other Techno Managerial
Services at the Government Health Institutions and Clause 2.2 of the
said Request for Proposal contains exhaustive conditions pertaining
to the eligibility criteria of such intending bidders.
3. The petitioner has challenged Clause 2.2 (I) and (V) which
have restricted the participation for the Company, Partnership Firm,
Society and the Trust thereby eliminating the proprietorship concern
without any reason nor any reasonability could be attached to the
object sought to be achieved. It further postulates the minimum three
years of working experience in providing a personnel for
paramedics/nursing/clinical services in the health facilities of the
Government sector, which according to the petitioner is too harsh
and offends the equality principles.
4. So far as Clause 2.2 (V) is concerned, it is sought to be
contended that the petitioner is supplying the manpower in different
sectors of the Government and, therefore, fixation of such working
experience clause in paramedics, nursing, clinical services is
Page 2 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026
discriminatory and calibrated to eliminate other eligible bidders who
have a vast experience of supplying manpower.
5. Taking that point first, it is no gain saying that the Request
for Proposal was floated for selection of an agency to undertake the
paramedics, nursing and other techno managerial services at the
Government health institutions and, therefore, it being a specialized
sector, the expertise into this regard cannot be said to be
unreasonable and/or irrational. The health sector is one of the
important and integral part of the entire Administrative system
which deals with the wellbeing of the citizenry of the country. It also
deals with the health and the life of the person and in order to
achieve such avowed objective any criteria, pertaining to the
experience is put in, cannot be said to be irrational and/or
unreasonable.
6.
It is not a case simpliciter for supplying manpower to do the
menial things but supply of manpower to undertake paramedics,
nursing and other techno-managerial services at the Government
hospitals and, in the event, experience clause is incorporated therein
we do not find any justification in the stand of the petitioner that
such conditions are oppressive and/or aimed to favour some persons.
Page 3 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026
Apart from the same, the Tendering Authorities are free to put
conditions depending upon the nature of the services/work and if the
nexus can be manifestly seen from the same even if some of the
persons are eliminated having no qualifications and/or experience in
this regard cannot be said to offend Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India.
7. The conditions/restrictions must be such to achieve the
object and have nexus to the purpose for which it is so put and it is
not open to a person having no eligibility criteria to challenge such
conditions if it appears to be reasonable and rational in all respect.
So far as the sub-clause (I) of Clause 2.2 of the Request for Proposal
is concerned, we find justification in the stand of the petitioner that
the authorities cannot exclude the proprietorship concern from
participating therein if the other conditions relating to eligibility
criteria are fulfilled by him, more particularly, when the partnership
firm, company, society and trust are entitled to participate.
8. The person who runs the agency of supplying the
manpower constitute a homogenous class and any classification
within the homogenous class without any intelligible differentia
offends the core fabric of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Page 4 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026
Constitution of India. We are conscious that the classification within
the class is permissible provided it has a nexus to the object sought
to be achieved and not when the persons of the said homogenous
class is eliminated without any rational and/or reasonableness in the
object for which such tender was floated.
9. Eliminating a person, being an integral part of the said
homogenous class, by creating an unreasonable and irrational
classification is to be eschewed as it is opposed to not only the
equality principles but also suffers from vice of arbitrariness. The
elimination of a person from a homogenous class without any
reasonable objective cannot be said to be within the competence of
Tendering Authority nor such decision gets immunity from
interference by the writ Court.
10. We are unable to countenance the submission of Ms.
Biswabara Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel that the Court
recognizes the freedom of incorporation of the clause in the tender
and if such clause is put, it is insulated from being scuttled by any
judicial interference. If the clause appears to be against the
constitutional provisions or violates any fundamental rights
contained in Part III of the Constitution of India, the writ Court
Page 5 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026
should step in and pierce such insulation having put and declare such
clause to be unconstitutional.
11. In the event the stand taken by the Government is accepted
as aforesaid, every action of the Government be it violative of the
statutory right or the constitutional provisions, is not susceptible to
be interfered with and a situation may arise that in the garb of a
freedom to contract, the Constitutional right would remain a dead
letter.
12. The fundamental rights are inviolable nor can be tinkered
with and if the Court finds that a Government or a semi-Government
or the authority, as the case may be, violates such fundamental rights
of a citizen, such action is always regarded as tainted and warrants
immediate interference by the writ Court.
13. We do not find any reasonability in excluding the
proprietorship concern when the partnership firm, company, society
and trust are included within sub-clause (I) of Clause 2.2 of the RFP.
The elimination of a proprietorship concern from participating in the
tender process is a denial of a right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g)
and also offends the ethos of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Page 6 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026
There is no intelligible differentia which could be perceived and/or
manifestly seen from such sub-clause (I) of Clause 2.2 and,
therefore, such classification within the homogeneous class is
against the principles emanating from the Part III of the Constitution
of India.
14. Though we would have proceeded to quash and set aside
the entire RFP, but we are conscious that the supply of manpower to
render services as paramedics, nursing and other techno managerial
services are the essential services. Therefore, we do not intend to
interfere therewith for the reasons that though the petitioner, being a
proprietorship concern, is eligible to participate under Clause 2.2.(I),
yet it appears from the submissions made before us that it does not
have the experience as contemplated under sub-clause (V) of Clause
2.2 and, therefore, does not meet the eligibility criteria.
15.
However, we simply declare that sub-clause (I) of Clause
2.2 of the said Request for Proposal being violative of Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, any proprietorship concern, who
qualifies the other conditions enshrined therein, may not be debarred
from participating in the said tender process.
Page 7 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026
16. The Government shall also take into consideration the
observations made hereinabove while floating the future tender
containing the restrictive clause i.e., Clause 2.2(I) and shall also
include the proprietorship concern along with the other mentioned
therein.
17. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Sisira
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-May-2026 13:39:47
Page 8 of 8
W.P.(C) No.13142 of 2026