NORTH EASTERN SECURITY SERVICE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE interim direction given by the order dated 28.11.2003 has been challenged by the respondent -authority.

(2.) I have heard Mr. H.K. Deka, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned State counsel and Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for private respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner is a registered private security agency. In pursuance of a tender notice, it had submitted its quotation for rendering security services. Being the lowest, the petitioner firm was appointed to cater security services to the Gauhati Medical College for a period of two months. The tender was floated inviting bids for total security arrangement for the staff and patients covering the estate of the Gauhati Medical College Hospital for the year 2003 -04. But the authority engaged the petitioner -agency for a period of two months only with effect from 16.5.2003 purely on temporary and experimental basis. The petitioner accepted the aforesaid engagement on the above terms and conditions without any objection. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot insist that they should be allowed to continue till the period of 1 year as specified in the tender notice is over. Security service depends on personal skill, experience and dedication on the part of the security personnel. The satisfaction of the employer in this score is obviously subjective. Even, specific performance of a contract of this nature by a decree of Civil Court is not permissible as the Court would not be able to enforce it in letter and spirit. Though, the petitioner -agency was allowed to continue for sometime beyond two months, yet such continuance did not vest with it any right to continue. The impugned termination order was issued after two months of service of notices on 17.7.2003, 26.8.2003 and 4.11.2003 in pursuance of the decision taken by the respondent -authority. It is clear from the above notice available in the office file that the College authority was not happy with the performance of the petitioner firm. Even if we assume that there is breach of contract, remedy would lie in common law for damages and not for specific performance. This Court will obviously not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in a matter which is dependent on subjective satisfaction of the authority.