ORISSAJOB.COM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the decision of opposite party No.2 -State Project Director, Orissa Poverty Reduction Mission (for short, "OPRM") taken on 29.06.2011 under Annexure -7 selecting opposite party No.3 -Sumeet Security Service as successful bidder on the ground that the said decision is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Further prayer of the petitioner is to prohibit the said Project Director from entering into agreement with opposite party No.3 -Sumeet Security Service and direct the Project Director to declare the petitioner as successful bidder.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case in a nutshell is that it is a Human Resources (HR) Consultancy Firm, represented through its Proprietor. It is an empanelled Consultant for supply of human resources to a Project called 'Targeted Rural Initiatives for Poverty Termination and Infrastructure' (for short, "TRIPTI"). The Project Director of OPRM invited proposals on 21.05.2011 to provide consultancy services with regard to supply of human resources at State, District and Block Project Management Units of TRIPTI Project on Outsourcing Basis to the empanelled firms. TRIPTI Project under OPRM is established, managed and administered by the Government Authorities under Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Orissa. Pursuant to the letter of invitation dated 21.05.2011 (Annexure -1) issued by the Project Director, the petitioner as an empanelled Consultant, took part in the pre -bid meeting conducted by the Project Director for the purpose of selection of HR Agency for Outsourcing Manpower to TRIPTI Project for the year 2011 -12 along with other five empanelled Consultants including opposite party No.3 -Sumeet Security Service, represented through its Proprietor Sri Prasanna Kumar Sahoo. Pursuant to the invitation of bids and pre -bid meeting by the Project Director, the petitioner submitted its bid proposal both technical and financial on 13.06.2011, which is before the stipulated period as per the norms provided by the TRIPTI Mission. After receipt of the tender proposals and complete verification of the technical bids from three bidders, the Project Director short listed the petitioner and opposite party No.3 -Sumeet Security Service. Finally, the Project Director, being the Chairperson of the Procurement Committee, illegally accepted the bid of Sumeet Security Service. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is further submitted that opposite Party No.3 has also submitted the Form FIN -2 and FIN -3 of the financial bid that has no resemblance with the standard formats given by the Project Director. Opposite party No.3 has quoted the facts and figures in Form FIN -2 which is the summery of costs and has also quoted the facts and figures in Form FIN -3, which is the breakdown of costs by activity. These are not as per the formats given by the Project Director. Moreover, opposite party No.3 has quoted the facts and figures in Form FIN -3 in four different segments as per his own choice against one page prescribed format by the Project Director. Form FIN -3 submitted by opposite party No.3 is not in accordance with the stipulations made by the Project Director. As per instruction No.2 of Form FIN -3 "names of activities (phase) should be the same as, or correspond to the ones indicated in the second column of Form TECH -8". This Form FIN -3 is not in accordance with the activities indicated in the second column of Form TECH -8. Therefore, acceptance of the proposals submitted by opposite party no.3 is completely unreasonable and illegal for which the selection is liable to be set aside.