Evaluation of operational capability via presentation in public tenders is valid administrative discretion if uniformly applied.

The Department of Women and Child Development (GNCTD) issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) on 21.07.2022 for the supply of Supplementary Nutritional Food under the Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 Scheme

The Petitioners, various NGOs/NPOs, participated and qualified the technical evaluation stage, which carried 70 marks

Subsequently, the Department introduced a virtual presentation stage carrying 30 marks, evaluated by a high-level committee

Following this, the Impugned Selection List was published on 20.02.2023, excluding the Petitioners

The Petitioners challenged their exclusion, alleging that the presentation stage was not envisaged in the EOI, the process was non-transparent, and the selection was arbitrary and conducted beyond the EOI’s 120-day validity period

1. Whether the adoption of a presentation-based assessment after the technical evaluation was consistent with the EOI framework or constituted an impermissible change to the "rules of the game"

2. Whether the exclusion of the Petitioners was arbitrary, non-transparent, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

3. Whether the issuance of the selection list beyond the 120-day validity period rendered the process invalid

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the scope of judicial review in public tenders

Tata Cellular v. Union of India, establishing that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process rather than merits, granting the State "play in the joints"

Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corp. Ltd. regarding the requirement for legal certainty and a level playing field under Article 14

Principle from Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation that essential conditions cannot be altered mid-process to prejudice bidders

Three-pronged test from Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa to determine if a tender process is so arbitrary or mala fide as to warrant interference

The Court reasoned that evaluating operational capacity for a nutritional scheme cannot be restricted to paper credentials; thus, a qualitative presentation assessment was consistent with the EOI's objective to assess execution capability

The Court found no evidence that the rules were changed mid-process because the presentation stage was applied uniformly to all technically qualified candidates, conferring no unfair advantage

Regarding transparency, the Court held that non-disclosure of individual presentation marks does not invalidate the process unless mala fides are proved, which the Petitioners failed to establish

The Court rejected the challenge regarding the virtual nature of presentations as a matter of administrative discretion

The Court ruled that the 120-day timeline was directory rather than mandatory, noting that Petitioners participated in the process without protest until their non-selection

The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, ruling that technical qualification does not create a vested right to selection and that quashing the process would detrimentally disrupt a public welfare scheme; the challenge to the Impugned Selection List dated 20.02.2023 failed