Enlistment Status Does Not Preclude Tendering Authority From Prescribing Specific Prior Experience Conditions in NITs

The Petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer, was enlisted as a CPWD contractor on 30.06.2023 under Rule 6.1.7 of the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in CPWD, 2022

This specific rule allows retired government engineers to be enlisted without prior work experience, recognizing their service history

Despite this enlistment, the Respondent issued a generic communication dated 07.06.2024 modifying SOP No. 4/9 and Annexure-24, which mandated that the requirement of executing "similar works" (prior experience) would apply to both CPWD-enlisted and non-enlisted contractors alike

The Petitioner challenged this communication, arguing that it arbitrarily revoked the exemption granted to retired engineers under Rule 6.1.7 and defeated his legitimate expectations after he had already been awarded a Letter of Acceptance for a tender

1. Whether the Respondent could validly impose a condition of "similar works" experience for specific tenders on contractors already enlisted under the exemption provided in Rule 6.1.7 of the Rules of 2022

2. Whether enlistment under Rule 6.1.7 confers a vested right to participate in all future tenders regardless of specific eligibility conditions prescribed for those works

The Court applied the principle that the State has the power to change or adjust policy based on germane considerations, provided the change is not arbitrary or capricious, as held in Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal

In tender matters, the authority has a "play in the joints" and significant latitude to set eligibility criteria unless they are shown to be mala fide or tailor-made, per Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Furthermore, judicial review of administrative action is restricted to the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself, as established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India and reaffirmed in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.

The Court reasoned that while Rule 6.1.7 governs the procedure for enlistment—permitting registration without experience—it does not grant an automatic exemption from technical requirements stipulated in specific tenders (NITs)

The Court found that the requirement of "similar works" is a reasonable eligibility condition aimed at ensuring technical competence for public projects and falls within the realm of contractual discretion

It rejected the Petitioner's argument that his enlistment status precluded the Respondent from setting higher standards for specific works, noting that enlistment determines general registration but does not create a vested right to bypass NIT-specific criteria

The Court observed that the Respondent, as the author of the tender, is the best judge of its own requirements, and judicial interference is not warranted in technical or commercial decisions unless there is manifest arbitrariness

The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the communication dated 07.06.2024 was arbitrary or discriminatory. Consequently, the writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed