DIN BANDHU DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE Memorandum dated 13.12.2010 the petitioner, Din Bandhu Dass, was selected to run Cafe-5 at Gents Hostel of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ,,AIIMS) on contract basis for a period of eleven (11) months commencing 1.1.2011, subject to the terms & conditions stipulated in the said Memorandum. Vide Memorandum dated 25.4.2013, the petitioner was informed that his contract had been extended for a period of one (1) month, i.e. w.e.f. 1.5.2013 to 31.5.2013 or till the finalization and award of new contract whichever be earlier. Vide notice dated 3.5.2013, the petitioner was informed that since fresh contract had been finalised and he had not been selected for the fresh contract he should make arrangement to wind up his shop/establishment by 24.5.2013 and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the concerned Hostel Junior/Assistant Warden. Being aggrieved from the said vacation notice, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) AS far as the contract awarded to the petitioner is concerned, the same having expired by efflux of time on 31.5.2013 and having not been extended thereafter, the petitioner has no legal right to continue in the premises which was made available to him pursuant to the Memorandum dated 13.12.2010. The petitioner, therefore, must necessarily vacate the said premises and hand it over to the hostel authorities. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner requests that a few days time may be given to the petitioner to wind up his affairs and remove his articles from the premises wherefrom he was providing services to the inmates of the hostel. The petitioner is permitted to remove his articles from the said premises on or before 24.9.2013, subject to his furnishing an undertaking to this Court on or before 19.9.2013 stating therein that he shall remove all his articles from the said premises and hand over its vacant possession to the hostel authorities on or before 24.9.2013.

(3.) A perusal of the minutes of the Committee which finalised the tenders and shortlisted the tenderers in terms of the marks awarded to them would show that out of 30 marks, 10 marks were allocated to previous experience, 15 were allocated to fitness for job and 5 were allocated to special conditions. The minutes, however, do not indicate what the special conditions were. As noticed earlier, the AIIMS while inviting tenders sought applications from experienced persons without indicating what would be the norms applied for evaluation of the tenders. The notice did not even indicate as to how much was the minimum experience required by the AIIMS. There was no indication in the notice that the tenders would also be evaluated on the parameters of fitness for job and special conditions. As a result, the tenderers did not know what would be the parameters on which their bids would be evaluated.