JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

Dr. Abinashi Sabyasachi Sethy v. State of Odisha and Anr.

Case Number: WP(C) No.17325 of 2020

Date of Decision: 15th July, 2022

In this case, the Petitioner had challenged his non-recommendation pursuant to the advertisement No.12 of 2018/19 issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OP No.2) for selection of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Paediatrics, in the Odisha Medical Education Service. The Petitioner had applied in the category of SC for selection to the post of Asst. Professor of Paediatrics. However, Dr. Mallick who was already working in the said post applied for the second time pursuant to the subsequent requisition of the State Government.

It was contended by the Petitioner that since the selected candidate was already appointed in the cadre of Orissa Medical Education Service working as Assistant Professor, Paediatrics pursuant to the order dated 06.11.2018, he was not given appointment for the subsequent selection as per the advertisement no.12 of 2018-19 and he continues to serve the Government in the cadre of OMES as per his earlier appointment.

The Opposite Party argued that Dr. Mallick had obtained a NOC from the appropriate authority for the sake of applying to the self-same post pursuant to advertisement no. 12 of 2018-19 issued by OPSC.

This Court observed that if the Merit List dated 07.06.2019 were taken into consideration, three SC candidates with Roll Nos. 367, 352(petitioner) and 372 (woman) should have been recommended if the candidature of Dr. Mallik “at the top” could not have been entertained, as he was already continuing in the same cadre and post for which advertisement was issued. The Court further remarked that once the OPSC has taken into account academic career and performance of the petitioner in the Viva Voce test, as recorded in Merit List dated 07.06.2019, the OPSC cannot go back not to disclose merit position of a particular candidate as per method of selection advertised by OPSC itself. The writ petition was allowed with an instruction to treat the Petitioner at par with the appointees appointed as per the recommendation of the OPSC pursuant to the advertisement No.12 of 2018/2019.

Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.29177 of 2021

Coram: Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice M.S Sahoo

Date of decision: 26th August, 2022

In this case, the Petitioner had challenged the decision of the tendering authority-All India Institute of Medical Science (Hereinafter, AIIMS for short), Bhubaneswar for accepting the bid of Opposite Party No.5-Quess Corporation Ltd, and awarding the contract to Opposite Party No.5 for providing manpower on job outsourcing basis at AIIMS Bhubaneswar for a period of two years from the date of award of contract and further extendable.

The Petitioner argued that the bid of Opposite Party No.5 should have been disqualified being not in consonance with Clauses-19 & 20 of the Technical Bid as the Opposite Party No.5 in the completion certificate produced for evaluation of its bid had not excluded “Security, Watchman & Housekeeping Services”.

On the other hand, the Opposite Party raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition contending that it is the prerogative of the tendering authority to evaluate the tender and it is also in the realm of policy of the public authority and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

This Court observed that the inbuilt mechanisms included in the tender process add to the sanctity of the tender process making it more in tune with the principles of natural justice as well as making the process more transparent. Moreover, the Court further opined that the petitioner had not been able to demonstrate that the Opposite Party no.5 had not complied with the conditions provided in Clauses 19 & 20 of the Technical Bid. The Court remarked- “ The comparative evaluation shows total annual turnover of the opposite party no.5 other than manpower service is Rs.6179.77 crores whereas the said annual turnover other than manpower service of the petitioner is Rs.2187.21 crores (Rs.21,87,21,81,914.00), thereby, indicating that both having quoted 2.09% as rate of service charge the opposite party no.5 having higher cumulative turnover for the last five years becomes L1.” Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits was disposed of.