Karnataka High Court
Bwssb Outsourced Employees Sangha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:54361
WP No. 12127 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 12127 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN
BWSSB OUTSOURCED EMPLOYEES SANGHA (REGD)
REGISTRATION NUMBER 107/2012-13,
3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
MTS COLONY, T. DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560057,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
J. KUMAR
.... PETITIONER
(BY PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETHAN A.C., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
Digitally signed SECRETARY,
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Location: HIGH VIKASA SOUDHA,
COURT OF BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
BWSSB, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
KG ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
AND SECRETARY,
BWSSB, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
KG ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
4. MERU INFO SOLUTIONS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:54361
WP No. 12127 of 2025
HC-KAR
2ND FLOOR, NO.7, ABOVE AXIS BANK,
2ND CROSS, OUTER RING ROAD,
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560072,
REP BY IT PARTNER,
SRIDHAR KRISHANAIAH.
5. SREE VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,
PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS,
REGISTERED ADDRESS AT:
512, 2ND C MAIN, 11TH BLOCK,
NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560072,
REP BY PROPRIETOR;
SRI. GANGANAHALLI CHANNAVEEREGOWDA
KRISHNEGOWDA
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.S.SHRINIVAS, FOR R2 AND 3; SRI. NITIN RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.V.G.BANUPRAKASH., AAG A/W SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1; SMT. NAYANATARA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUEA WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE TENDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTS BEARING IFT NO. BWSSB/CH/CAO-S/EST- 8/4222/2024-25 DATED 4/3/2025 FOR ENGAGING 575 NOS OF DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, DRIVER, HELPER AND ATTENDER THROUGH MANPOWER AGENCY ON CONTRACT BASIS TO NORTH ZONE OF BWSSB (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.11.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ -3- NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
1. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the 3rd respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO-S/Est-8/4222/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 for engaging 575 nos of Data Entry Operator, Driver, Helper and Attender through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to North Zone of BWSSB (Annexure A);
2. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO- S/Est-8/4223/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 for engaging 783 nos of Operator, Electrician, Fitter, Security Guard, Valveman and Sanitary Helper through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to North Zone of BWSSB (Annexure B);
3. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the 3rd respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO-S/Est-8/4224/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 for engaging 643 nos of Data Entry Operator, Driver, Helper and Attender through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to South Zone of BWSSB (Annexure C);
4. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO-
S/Est-8/4225/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 (wrongly typed as 4/3/2024) for engaging 856 nos of Operator, Electrician, Fitter, Security Guard, Valveman and Sanitary Helper through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to South Zone of BWSSB (Annexure D); and
5. Pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit to grant in the interests of justice and equity.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. The Petitioner claims to be an Association of more than 300 contract workers of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board (for short hereinafter referred to as "BWSSB") who have been working with BWSSB for more than 10 years and have acquired the skills suitable for their work. It is claimed that the members of the Petitioner have been working under various contractors for more than 10 years. Though the contractors have changed, the members of the petitioners continue to work for BWSSB. The Petitioner is before this Court, challenging fresh tenders issued by BWSSB in all four numbers for engaging 2857 number of operators, electricians, fitters, security guards, valve men, sanitary helpers, data entry operators, drivers, helpers and attenders through manpower agencies on a contract basis for both the north and south zones of BWSSB. It is in that background that the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR Petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Prof.Ravivarma Kumar., learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Association submits that; 3.1. The members of the Petitioner have attained permanency of work, having worked for more than ten years with BWSSB. The manner in which they continue to work with BWSSB requires their service to be regularised. It is apprehend on part of the Petitioner that the successful tenderer may replace the members of the Petitioner which would amount to an ad hoc or temporary employee being replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, which he submits cannot be done, such replacement can only be by a regularly selected employee and in this regards he relies upon decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. -6- NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR Umadevi (3) and others1 , more particularly para 20, 24 and 25 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
20. The decision in Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396 :
1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] dealt with a scheme framed by the State of Karnataka, though at the instance of the Court. The scheme was essentially relating to the application of the concept of equal pay for equal work but it also provided for making permanent, or what it called regularisation, without keeping the distinction in mind, of employees who had been appointed ad hoc, casually, temporarily or on daily-wage basis. In other words, employees who had been appointed without following the procedure established by law for such appointments. This Court, at the threshold, stated that it should individualise justice to suit a given situation. With respect, it is not possible to accept the statement, unqualified as it appears to be. This Court is not only the constitutional Court, it is also the highest Court in the country, the final Court of appeal. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, what this Court lays down is the law of the land. Its decisions are binding on all the courts. Its main role is to interpret the constitutional and other statutory provisions bearing in mind the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution. We have given unto ourselves a system of governance by rule of law. The role of the Supreme Court is to render justice according to law. As one jurist put it, the Supreme Court is expected to decide questions of law for the country and not to decide individual cases without reference to such principles of law. Consistency is a virtue. Passing orders not consistent with its own decisions on law, is bound to send out confusing signals and usher in judicial chaos. Its role, therefore, is really to interpret the law and decide cases coming before it, according to law. Orders which are inconsistent with the legal conclusions arrived at by the Court in the selfsame judgment not only create 1 2006 (4) SCC 1 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR confusion but also tend to usher in arbitrariness highlighting the statement, that equity tends to vary with the Chancellor's foot.
24. This Court then referred to some of the earlier decisions of this Court while stating : (SCC p. 134, para 21) "The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be.
As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. While all the situations in which the Court may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed here, it is sufficient to indicate that the guiding principles are the ones stated above."
25. This Court then concluded in paras 45 to 49 : (SCC p.
152) "45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.
47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.
48. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes.
49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State." 3.2. His submissions by relying on Umadevi's case is that the replacement of an ad hoc or temporary employee with another temporary employee is an arbitrary action. When posts are available to be filled up, recruitment has to be done by normal methodology; if the same is -9- NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR not so done, it would amount to perpetuation of injustice and an arbitrary action. 3.3. The total working strength of BWSSB being around 3500, 2857 workers have been outsourced, the nature of work of the outsourced persons being operators, electricians, fitters, valve men, sanitary helpers, etc., would indicate that these are the essential works to be carried out by BWSSB. The BWSSB, therefore, cannot outsource or contract for these works, which are essential in nature.
3.4. While engaging the contractors for the purpose of outsourcing the reservation policy under Article 16 of the Constitution of India would be given a go-by. Thus, the outsourcing is violative of the Constitution of India.
3.5. His submission is that, in terms of the notification issued by BWSSB on 27.04.2020,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR outsourced employees would be of two categories, viz., Cadre Specific, i.e., specialised for only one post, and Cadre Less, i.e., employees who can be used for any work. 3.6. The Cadre Specific employees, being important and skilled employees who have gained expertise in technical aspects of an important public utility service, such as BWSSB, are given a go-by by way of this outsourcing model. The entire tender process is void and violative of the decision in the Umadevi's case. The members of the Petitioner who have been working for over 10 years would lose their employment if the outsourcing is permitted to go on.
3.7. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manish Gupta and Another vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR Others2, more particularly para 13 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
13. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24-6- 2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P-2 of the appeal paperbook and the advertisement dated 2-7-2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P-3 of the appeal paperbook, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 938] and on the order of this Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 618] .
3.8. By relying on Manish Gupta's case, he submits that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee but can only be replaced by another candidate who is 2 (2022) 15 SCC 540
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR regularly appointed by following the regular procedure.
3.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others3, more particularly para 3 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly. 3.10. By relying on Harguru Pratap Singh's case, he again submits that one ad hoc arrangement 3 (2007)13 SCC 292
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR by cannot be replaced by another ad hoc arrangement, and persons like the members of the petitioners, having gained experience, their services could be continued with the BWSSB till regular appointments are made.
3.11. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Harayana and Others vs. Piara Singh and Others4, more particularly para 46 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.
3.12. By relying on Piara Singh's case he again submits that an ad hoc or temporary employee must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee; anything done otherwise would be arbitrary.
4 (1992) 4 SCC 118
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR 3.13. On the basis of all the above, he submits that the Petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought for to be granted.
4. Sri.V.G.Banuprakash., learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that;
4.1. The aspect of securing employees/workmen from outsourcing is left to the discretion of the BWSSB, so long as the applicable laws, including the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, are complied with. 4.2. His submission is also that while engaging employees/workmen on an outsourced basis, the reservation policy of the Government would be required to be complied with by the BWSSB and the contractor, at the time of engaging of the outsourced employees/workmen, as also during the course of his services to be rendered by the contractor.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR 4.3. His submission is that, so long as due compliance is made to various applicable laws, the policy of the State is not to discourage outsourcing, nor does the State impose any embargo on such outsourcing.
4.4. On the basis of the affidavit of the Under Secretary to the Government Department of Urban Development he submits that in terms of circular dated 26.05.2005 issued by the State of Karnataka, the existing vacant posts of Drivers and Group-D employees can be filled up by outsourcing only until the said posts are filled up at a later point of time. 4.5. When BWSSB had approached the Government for the creation of posts, the Government vide letter dated 13.12.2019 had informed BWSSB that the existing posts in the BWSSB exceed the sanction strength and hence, it informed to fill the post in a phased manner which shall not
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR exceed the cadre strength and the excess employees who are working on outsourced basis should be adjusted under newly created posts.
4.6. A request having been made by BWSSB for amending the Cadre and Recruitment (C&R) Rules 2015, BWSSB has been asked to submit a draft amendment, which shall be considered on such submission.
4.7. His submission, therefore, is that only Group-D work can be outsourced and no other works can outsourced.
5. Sri.Vikram Huilgol., learned Sernior Counsel for the BWSSB would submit that;
5.1. The BWSSB would comply with all the policies of the Government of Karnataka, including the aforesaid Circular. The BWSSB will maintain the necessary reservation even during the course of outsourcing and also limit the outsourcing to
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR Category-D employees and not outsource any other class of employees (viz., A, B and C). 5.2. His submission is that with the change of contractor, the employees/workmen will not be transferred to a new contractor and that none of the employees/workmen shall be continued for a longer period than what is required. 5.3. His further submission is that the Petition is premature inasmuch as the grievance of the Petitioner is that the petitioners will be deprived of their livelihood on account of the contract, it is not necessarily required for that to happen. The contractors could always engage the services of the existing workmen, and it is not that they will be deprived of their employment merely because there is a new contractor who is successful in the tendering process. 5.4. His further submission is that the petitioners are required to approach the Labour Court for
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR regularisation of their services; if so required, the petitioners cannot seek to extend their employment by filing the above proceedings. 5.5. On all the above grounds, he submits that the above Petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Sri.Nitin Ramesh., learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterates the submission of Sri.Vikram Huilgol., learned Senior counsel and further submits that Respondent No.5 would comply with all applicable laws, including the circulars which have been issued by the Government and any particular instruction which is issued by BWSSB. There would be no violation which would be committed by Respondent No.5 during the process of outsourcing, and as such, the allegations made by the petitioners are premature.
7. Smt.Nayanatara.B.G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submts that ;
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR 7.1. She relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) & Ors.5, more particularly para 8 and 26 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
8. Elaborating the aforesaid grounds, it is vehemently submitted by Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG that the original writ petitioner claims to be a non-profit organisation carrying out independent research, advisory and advocacy in the field of civil aviation. It is submitted that as per the settled position, NGOs have no locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the tender conditions especially when the same is not in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. It is submitted that an NGO has no business to enter into tender disputes as the same falls in the realm of contract. It is submitted that the original writ petitioner cannot be said to be an affected and/or aggrieved party and therefore at the instance of the original writ petitioner, a writ petition was not maintainable assailing the tender process. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, (2008) 5 SCC 217 (para 12).
26. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent No. 1 claiming to be a non-profit 5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1334
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR organisation carrying out research, advisory and advocacy in the field of civil aviation had filed a writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs. It is required to be noted that none of the GHAs who participated in the tender process and/or could have participated in the tender process have challenged the tender conditions. It is required to be noted that the writ petition before the High Court was not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. In that view of the matter, it is not appreciable how respondent No. 1 - original writ petitioner being an NGO would have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs. Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an" aggrieved party". Therefore, in the present case, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of respondent No. 1, challenging the eligibility criteria/tender conditions mentioned in the respective RFPs. The High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of locus standi of respondent No. 1 - original writ petitioner to maintain the writ petition. 7.2. By relying on Airport Authority of India's case, her submission is that an NGO would have no locus standii to maintain a writ petition challenging tender conditions, especially when the same is not in the nature of public interest litigation. In the present case, Petitioner being an association of employees/workmen cannot have any grievance insofar as the tender process is concerned. The Petitioner not having
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR participated in the tender cannot have any grievance as regards the said tender. 7.3. She relies upon the decision a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Koppala Zilla Sarvajaneka Vasathi Nilayagalali Karyanirvaisutiruva Karmekara Sahakara Sangha Represented by its President Mrutunjaya Sarangmath Vs. Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha and Others6, more particularly Para 2, 13, 16 and 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
2. Facts, in brief, germane in Writ Petition No. 107536 of 2024 are as follows:
The petitioner/Sangha is said to have come into existence on 16-08-2012 comprised of Group-C and Group-D employees working as Cooks, Assistants, Cleaners, Watchmen, Teaching and non Teaching staff and members of the SC & ST community under the Department of Minority Welfare and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath of the State of Karnataka. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the dispute or activities of the Sangha. It is the averment in the Petition that members of the 6 (2025) SCConline Karnataka 963
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR Sangha have been entrusted work for a long time albeit without calling for any tender. On 31-07-2024, the 2nd respondent notifies two tenders for supply of manpower to work in various posts in the 2nd respondent, Department of Social Welfare. The tender is called for various posts ranging from data entry operator to sweeper. The total number of posts called for in both the tenders were 635. It is the claim of the petitioner/Sangha that its members are fully trained and rendering services out of the income from the Sangha. The Sangha participates in the tenders by submitting its bids. On 09-09-2024 the technical bids were finalised and on 05-11-2024 financial bids were opened. The petitioner/Sangha submits representations to the Tender Inviting Authority alleging irregularities in the tender procedure. Irregularities projected were that while notifying 635 posts in the tender, the contract awarded to the successful tenderer was for 689 posts i.e., 54 posts over and above the posts notified. Non-consideration of the representation with regard to irregularities in the tender leads the Petitioner to this Court in the subject Petition seeking quashment of contract awarded in favour of the 5th respondent and seeking a consequential direction to cancel the tender allotted to the 5th respondent and allot the same to the petitioner/Sangha.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents would merit acceptance as the petitioner/Sangha knowing fully well that service charge indicated in the tender document ranges between 1% and 5% and it was contrary to Government Order dated 15-05-2017 participates in the tender. Having participated in the tender and failing to emerge as successful bidder, cannot now turn around and challenge Clauses 8 and 9 quoted supra of the tender with regard to service charge being contrary to the Government Order as it has
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR acquiesced in the tender process by participating in it.
16. In Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the terms and conditions of the tender are prescribed by the Government bearing in mind the nature of contract and in such matters, the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. It is not for the Court to say as to whether the conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration were better than the one's prescribed in the earlier tender invitations.
19. Paragraph 10, 11, 19 and 23 of Michigan Rubber (India) Limited (supra) are reproduced as under:
"10. This Court, in a series of decisions, considered similar conditions incorporated in the tender documents and also the scope and judicial review of administrative actions. The scope and the approach to be adopted in the process of such review have been settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. Since the principle of law is settled and well recognised by now, we may refer to some of the decisions only to recapitulate the relevant tests applicable and approach of this Court in such matters.
11. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] this Court emphasised the need to find a right balance between administrative discretion to decide the matters on the one hand, and the need to remedy any unfairness on the other, and observed : (SCC pp. 687-88, para 94)
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR "(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract....
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract.
In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi- administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.,, [1948] 1 K.B. 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
19. While considering the above submissions, the three-Judge Bench held as under : (Assn. of Registration Plates case [(2005) 1 SCC 679], SCC pp. 698-701, paras 38-40 & 43-44)
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR "38. In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract of the nature of ensuring supply of high security registration plates, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. Unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable. On intensive examination of tender conditions, we do not find that they violate the equality clause under Article 14 or encroach on fundamental rights of the class of intending tenderers under Article 19 of the Constitution. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the Union and the State authorities and the justification shown for the terms of the impugned tender conditions, we do not find that the clauses requiring experience in the field of supplying registration plates in foreign countries and the quantum of business turnover are intended only to keep indigenous manufacturers out of the field. It is explained that on the date of formulation of scheme in Rule 50 and issuance of guidelines thereunder by the Central Government, there were not many indigenous manufacturers in India with technical and financial capability to undertake the job of supply of such high dimension, on a long-term basis and in a manner to ensure safety and security which is the prime object to be achieved by the introduction of new sophisticated registration plates.
39. The notice inviting tender is open to response by all and even if one single manufacturer is ultimately selected for a region or State, it cannot be said that the State has created a monopoly of business in favour of a private party. Rule 50 permits the RTOs concerned themselves to implement the policy or to get it implemented through a selected approved manufacturer.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR
40. Selecting one manufacturer through a process of open competition is not creation of any monopoly, as contended, in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution read with clause (6) of the said article. As is sought to be pointed out, the implementation involves large network of operations of highly sophisticated materials. The manufacturer has to have embossing stations within the premises of the RTO. He has to maintain the data of each plate which he would be getting from his main unit. It has to be crosschecked by the RTO data. There has to be a server in the RTO's office which is linked with all RTOs in each State and thereon linked to the whole nation. Maintenance of the record by one and supervision over its activity would be simpler for the State if there is one manufacturer instead of multi- manufacturers as suppliers. The actual operation of the scheme through the RTOs in their premises would get complicated and confused if multimanufacturers are involved. That would also seriously impair the high security concept in affixation of new plates on the vehicles. If there is a single manufacturer he can be forced to go and serve rural areas with thin vehicular population and less volume of business. Multimanufacturers might concentrate only on urban areas with higher vehicular population.
43. Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the Government from arbitrarily choosing a contractor at its will and pleasure. It has to act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract. At the same time, no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. All that he can claim is that in competing for the contract, he should not be
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR unfairly treated and discriminated, to the detriment of public interest. Undisputedly, the legal position which has been firmly established from various decisions of this Court, cited at the Bar [Ed. : Reference may be made to the decisions in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617; Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 738; Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala, (1997) 9 SCC 495; Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn., (2001) 3 SCC 635; Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M&N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445; Union of India v. Dinesh Engg. Corpn., (2001) 8 SCC 491.] is that government contracts are highly valuable assets and the Court should be prepared to enforce standards of fairness on the Government in its dealings with tenderers and contractors.
44. The grievance that the terms of notice inviting tenders in the present case virtually create a monopoly in favour of parties having foreign collaborations, is without substance. Selection of a competent contractor for assigning job of supply of a sophisticated article through an open-tender procedure, is not an act of creating monopoly, as is sought to be suggested on behalf of the petitioners. What has been argued is that the terms of the notices inviting tenders deliberately exclude domestic manufacturers and new entrepreneurs in the field. In the absence of any indication from the record that the terms and conditions were tailor- made to promote parties with foreign collaborations and to exclude indigenous manufacturers, judicial interference is uncalled for."
After observing so, this Court dismissed all the writ petitions directly filed in this Court and transferred to this Court from the High Courts.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR
23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and ss
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government." 7.4. By referring to Koppala Zilla's case, she submits that the issues which have been raised by the petitioners are all disputed questions of fact. The date of their employment, the terms of their employment, albeit on an ad hoc basis, would have to be determined only by the Labour Court, and a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot consider the reliefs which have been sought for. 7.5. On all the above basis, she also submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed.
8. Heard Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar., learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.V.G.Banuprakash., learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1, Sri.Vikram Huilgol., learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BWSSB , Sri.Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent Nos. 4 and Smt.Nayanatara.B.G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. perused papers.
9. The points that would arise for consideration are;
1. Whether the petitioners can maintain the present writ petition as an association of workmen to challenge a tender?
2. Whether the Reservation Policy under Article 16 of the Constitution of India is required to be followed as regards outsourcing?
3. Whether in the present case, the issuance of a tender would amount to the replacement of one ad hoc employee by another ad hoc employee?
4. Is there a requirement for this Court to intercede with the tendering process?
5. What order?
10. I answer the above points as follows;
11. Answer to point No.1: Whether the Petitioner can maintain the present writ petition as an association of workmen to challenge a tender? 11.1. It is not in dispute that individual workmen are not before this Court. The Petitioner association claims to be an association of more than 300
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR contract workers of the BWSSB, who have been working with the BWSSB for more than 10 years.
11.2. The contention of Sri.Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the said members, having worked with the BWSSB for 10 years or more, their services are required to be regularised. References have been made to Uma Devi's case, Manish Gupta's case to that effect.
11.3. Whether the members of the petitioners have been working with BWSSB for 10 years or more is not a matter which is in issue before this Court. What has been challenged before this Court is the tender which has been issued by the BWSSB. If at all the members or the Petitioner wished to have their service regularised, they would have to file necessary proceedings as contemplated in law before the
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR appropriate authority, without filing such proceedings, the Petitioner cannot maintain this present Petition, inasmuch as the Petitioner is an association of the so-called workmen who have been working with BWSSB for a long period of time.
11.4. None of the individual workmen having raised any issue before any authority seeking for regularisation of their employment, the question of the association contending that they ought to be regularised cannot be so considered in the present writ petition.
11.5. In fact, the prayers which have been sought are only to quash the tenders and not for regularisation. It is only by way of interim relief that the service of the members of the Petitioner is sought to be continued till the disposal of the writ petition.
11.6. Looked at from any angle, the members of the Petitioner, namely the workmen, are not before
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR this Court; an association is before this Court. None of the workemen have filed proceedings for regularisation of their services and as such, in my considered opinion, the Petitioner association cannot maintain a challenge to the tenders issued by the BWSSB.
11.7. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that the Petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition as an association of workmen to challenge a tender.
12. Answer to point No.2: Whether the Reservation Policy under Article 16 of the Constitution of India is required to be followed as regards outsourcing?
12.1. The categorical submission made by Sri.V.G. Banuprakash., learned Additional Advocate General, is that the policy of reservation would have to be followed even during the course of outsourcing,--the submission of Sri.Vikram Huilgol., learned Senior counsel appearing for
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR the BWSSB is that one of the conditions which has been prescribed in the tender notification is for the contractor to follow the reservation policy. His further submission is that BWSSB will adhere to the Circular and policy of the State 12.2. There is no particular dispute as regards the applicability of the reservation policy to outsourcing contracts. Respondents No.4 and 5 have also submitted that they would follow the reservation policy.
12.3. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that even insofar as outsourcing contracts of a Government body are concerned, reservation in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and such other State law would be applicable and would have to be complied with.
13. Answer to point No.3: Whether in the present case, the issuance of a tender would amount to
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR the replacement of one ad hoc employee by another ad hoc employee?
13.1. The submission of Prof.Ravi Varma Kumar., learned Senior cousnel is that the members of the petitioners being temporary employees, by way of the tender, the work being carried out by the members of the Petitioner are being outsourced and as such it would amount to replacement of one temporary employee with another temporary employee and on that ground, his submission is that the tender would have to be quashed.
13.2. The replacement of one worker with another worker is not a ground for challenge to a tender before the Constitutional Court. The decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners are all relating to a challenge to an appointment and/or for regularisation of appointment, which
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR is not the subject matter of the present Petition.
13.3. If at all, the members of the petitioner association are aggrieved, they can seek the necessary relief before the appropriate Forums. This Court, while considering the validity or invalidity of the tender process, cannot conduct a roving inquiry on the allegations which are made.
13.4. The decision in Manish Gupta's case was relating to appointment of guest lecturers where the challenge having been made by the guest lecturers to the notification which had been issued, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee, but he can only be replaced by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following regular procedure.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR 13.5. In the present case, firstly, members of the Petitioner are not sought to be replaced. It is only a tender which has been issued. The cause of action to the members of the Petitioner would arise only if their services are terminated and not otherwise. Since there is no termination made of their services, there is no cause of action which has arisen in favour of the members of the Petitioner let alone the Petitioner to challenge the tender notification. 13.6. Be that as it may, the tender notification is for the purpose of outsourcing, which is permissible under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. There is no violation which has been pointed out to have been committed by BWSSB or the tenderers of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. In that view of the matter, the aspect of replacement not having arisen cannot
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR be agitated before this Court, which is an assumption or a presumption or an apprehended consequence of the tender on the part of the members of the Petitioner. 13.7. As indicated supra, if the services of the members of the Petitioner were to be terminated, the relief that they are required to seek for is before the appropriate forum and not before this Court.
13.8. As such, I answer point No.3 by holding that the mere issuance of a tender would not amount to the replacement of one ad hoc employee by another ad hoc employee.
14. Answer to point No.4: Is there a requirement for this Court to intercede with the tendering process?
14.1. In view of my answers to points No.1 to 3, I am of the considered opinion that the tender process having been initiated properly, the tenderer-BWSSB as also the bidders-
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR respondents No.4 and 5 have categorically indicated that they will comply with the applicable reservation policy as also the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, is not required to be interceded with.
14.2. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that there being no aspect which has been brought to notice of this Court as regards any violation by the BWSSB and or respondents No.4 and 5 the processing of the tender cannot be curtailed and there is no need for this Court to intervene in these circumstances.
15. Answer to point No.5: What order?
15.1. In view of my answers to point No.1 to 4, no grounds being made out, the Petition stands dismissed.
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54361 WP No. 12127 of 2025 HC-KAR 15.2. Liberty, however, is reserved to the members of the Petitioner to approach the appropriate Court seeking the appropriate reliefs.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2