Exclusion of proprietorship concerns from tender eligibility without a rational nexus violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

The Petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in manpower supply, challenged a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Puri

The RFP sought agencies to provide paramedics, nursing, and techno-managerial services at Government health institutions

The Petitioner contested two eligibility conditions in Clause 2.2: sub-clause (I), which limited participation to Companies, Partnership Firms, Societies, and Trusts, thereby excluding proprietorships; and sub-clause (V), which required three years of prior experience specifically in paramedics/clinical services in the government sector

While the Petitioner supplied manpower in other government sectors, it lacked specific clinical experience

1. Whether the exclusion of proprietorship concerns from the tender process under Clause 2.2(I) is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

2. Whether the requirement of specific clinical/paramedic experience under Clause 2.2(V) is unreasonable or irrational

The court applied the principles of equality and the right to carry on trade under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that any classification within a homogeneous class must be based on an "intelligible differentia" having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved

It further recognized the "freedom to contract" for Tendering Authorities to set technical standards, provided such conditions are not oppressive or arbitrary

The court also invoked its power of judicial review to intervene when tender conditions violate fundamental rights, regardless of the government's discretion in commercial matters

Regarding Clause 2.2(V), the court reasoned that because the health sector involves the life and wellbeing of citizens, requiring specialized expertise in paramedics and nursing is a reasonable restriction and not irrational

Regarding Clause 2.2(I), the court found that manpower agencies constitute a "homogeneous class." Excluding a proprietorship while allowing partnership firms or companies creates a classification without any intelligible differentia

The court held that such an arbitrary exclusion denies the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) and fails the test of Article 14, as the legal structure of the entity has no manifest nexus to the ability to provide manpower

Despite this finding, the court noted that since the Petitioner lacked the valid technical experience required by the (upheld) Clause 2.2(V), it remained ineligible even if the entity-type restriction was removed

It directed the Government to include proprietorships in future tenders

The Court upheld Clause 2.2(V) regarding specialized experience as reasonable

Because the Petitioner did not meet the experience criteria under Clause 2.2(V), the writ petition was dismissed, and the RFP was not quashed due to the essential nature of the health services involved