Tamil Nadu Ex-serviceman's Corporation Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors.

Wing Commander Peter George * IRA – 45, Gokul, near S.L. Clinic, Viswabharanan, Pappanamcode, Trivandrum, Kerala 695 018.7.M/s.Vajraa Securities and Allied Services, Rep. By its Proprietor,* Brig. R.Velu * Door NO.39, R.V.Layour, Ondipudur, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 016.* Cause title amended as per Court order dated 13.03.2009in M.P.No.1 of 2009 ... Respondents in W.P.No.21489 of 2008Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation Limited(in short, the TEXCO), Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking)rep. By its General Manager,Maj Parameswaran Memorial,No.2, West Mada Street,Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.... Petitioner in W.P.No.21788 of 2008Vs.1.The Union of India, rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.2.The Director General of Resettlement, West Block 4, R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110 066.3.The Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, rep. By its Deputy General Manager, (Admin.,) No.89, Millers Road, Chennai 600 010.4.Brigadier Kurana, representing * EATS, 1/44, Sriram Main Road, Mugalivakkam Main Road, Porur, Chennai 600 116.5.Colonel Malaiappan (Retd.,), * Proprietor M/s.Malli Security & Detective Services, Green Gardens, 389/2, L- Block, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Wing Commander Hariprasad (Retd.,) * Proprietor, M/s.Bharateeyam Security Services, Jal Vayu Vihar, Housing Board, Madambakkam, Tambaram, Chennai 600 073.7.Lt. Colonel C.R.Sundar (Retd.,), * Proprietor Star Security Services, Plot No.43, 23rd Cross Road, Padmavathi Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai 600 073.* cause title amended as per Court order dated 06.02.2009in M.P.No.1 of 2009... Respondents in W.P.No.21788 of 2008The Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation Ltd.,(TEXCO), Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking,2, West Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.... Petitioner in W.P.No.23934 of 2008Vs.1.The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), rep. By its Chief General Manager, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.2.The General manager (BSNL), Gandhiji Road, Erode, 640 011.3.The Government of India, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-1.4.The Directorate General of Resettlement, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, West Block IV, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-1.5.Brig. Mr.Velu Proprietor, M/s.Vajraa Security and Allied Services, No.39, R.V.Layout, Ondipudur, Coimbatore-16. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Brig. Mr.Veera Pradap, No.6/158, South Alagapuram, Salem-14.... Respondents in W.P.No.23934 of 2008Prayer in W.P.No.21489 of 2008:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the entire records pertaining to the Tender awarded by the4th respondent in his proceedings in OP/Security Arrangements/07-08/33 dated at Coimbatore the 28.07.2008 and quash the same andto direct the respondents 3 & 4 to continue the contract withthe petitioner Corporation (TEXCO) in Coimbatore Circle from timeto time on such terms and conditions.Prayer in W.P.No.21788 of 2008:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rdrespondent herein to allot the entire work order pursuant to thetender proceedings No: APR/TENDERS/S-G/2007-08, Vol.2/Part/14,dated 06.03.2008, in favour of the petitioner Corporation i.e.Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen's Corporation Limited (TEXCO) inaccordance with DGR Guidelines Para 20(j) and to continue theemployment of the members of the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen'sCorporation Limited (TEXCO).Prayer in W.P.No.23934 of 2008:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the entirerecords and proceedings of 2nd respondent, in its impugnedletters (i) Nos.G180/Security Guard/LimitedTender/Vol.II/08-09/34/dt: 08.09.2008, (ii) Nos.G180/Security Guard/LimitedTender/Vol.II/08-09/34/dt: 08.09.2008, awarding of contract forsupply of security personnel numbering to 89 in Zone B and 86 inzone A to the respondents 5 and 6 respectively in pursuance tothe allotment made on02.09.2008 and considering the legality andproprietary thereof quash the same and consequently direct therespondents 1 and 2 to award the entire contract to thepetitioner as per the petitioner's representation dated28.07.2008For Petitioner inW.P.No.21489 of 2008:Mr.P.S.Raman, AdditionalAdvocate General forMr.Sathish RajanFor Petitioner inW.P.No.21788 of 2008M/s.G.Bala & Daisy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner inW.P.No.21489 of 2008:Mr.P.S.Raman, AdditionalAdvocate General forMr.Sathish RajanFor Petitioner inW.P.No.23934 of 2008:Mr.P.S.Raman, AdditionalAdvocate General forM/s.Pushpa MenonFor Respondents 1 & 2 inW.P.Nos.21489 and 21788 of2008 and Respondents 3 and 4in W.P.No.23934 of 2008:Mr.S.Veerabagu,Additional CentralGovernment StandingCounsel For Respondents 3 & 4 inW.P.No.21489 :Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents 5 to 7 inW.P.No.21489 and 5thRespondent in W.P.No.23934of 2008:Mr.K.F.ManavalanFor 3rd Respondent inW.P.No.21788 of 2008:Mr.Manoj SreevatsanFor Respondents 4 & 6 inW.P.No.21788 of 2008:Mr.J.ThilagarajFor 5th Respondent inW.P.No.21788 of 2008:5th Respondent appeared inpersonFor 7th Respondent inW.P.No.21788 of 2008:No AppearanceFor Respondents 1 and 2 inW.P.No.23934 of 2008:Mr.S.Udayakumar For 6th Respondent inW.P.No.23934 of 2008:No AppearanceCOMMON ORDERThe Tamil Nadu Ex-serviceman's Corporation Limited ( inshort "TEXCO") is the petitioner in all the three writ petitions.TEXCO is a State owned Corporation of the Government of TamilNadu engaged in the business of providing employment to Ex-servicemen by sponsoring them to various Central/State GovernmentDepartments / Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations, Boardsand Co-operative Societies etc.,. Admittedly, TEXCO has beenregistered as a Company under the Companies Act and the same isowned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It has got 8 Directors,when 3 are serving defence personnel, one is a retired NavyOfficer. An Officer from Indian Administrative Service has beenappointed by the State Government as its Chairman-cum-Managing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Director. Its General Manager, is a District Revenue Officer fromthe Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.3. The Director General of Re-settlement ( inshort "the DGR") who is one of the respondents in all the writpetitions was established for providing employment and selfemployment opportunities for Ex-servicemen of Army, Navy and AirForce in all Public Sector Undertaking and Corporate Sectors,sponsoring the security agencies. The DGR has issuedInstructions for operating /running and sponsoring of securityagencies that are empanelled with it. Individual partnership /private limited companies run by retired service officers ofArmed Forces and the State Government Organisations run andmanned by retired service personnel viz., Ex-servicemen areeligible for empanelment with DGR. The monthly salary for thesecurity guards has been fixed by the DGR.4. In the year 1998, TEXCO entered into a servicecontract with BSNL for sponsoring Ex-servicemen to SecurityGuard Services to BSNL for Coimbatore Region. The contract wasextended time and again without any dispute. While so, forawarding security services contract, the General Manager, BSNL,Coimbatore invited tenders. The respondents 5 to 7 weresponsored by DGR. TEXCO submitted the tender directly withoutbeing sponsored by the DGR. On opening the tenders, it wasfound that TEXCO and the respondents 5 to 7 had quoted the sameprice. Therefore, by lot, the General Manager of BSNL dividedthe work among the petitioner corporation (TEXCO) and therespondents 5 to 7 by proceedings in OP/SecurityArrangements/07-08/33 dated at Coimbatore the 28.07.2008 .Challenging the same, TEXCO has filed W.P.No.21489 of 2008.5. Similarly, the BSNL, the 3rd respondent inW.P.No.21788 of 2008 invited tenders on 05.03.2008 to awardcontract for engaging security guards for Chennai Region. Thepetitioner TEXCO submitted its tender directly. The respondents4 to 7 in W.P.No.21788 of 2008 submitted their tenders and theyhad also quoted same price. Therefore, the BSNL decided todivide the security service contract among the fiveparticipants. Accordingly, the work was split up and by lot, itwas allotted to all the five participants by work order dated26.06.2008. In W.P.No.21788 of 2008, the petitioner TEXCO praysfor a mandamus to the BSNL to allot the entire work to thepetitioner TEXCO. 6. Similarly, the General Manager, BSNL, Erode, invitedtenders on 30.06.2008 for awarding contract for engaging securityservices for Erode Region. The petitioner TEXCO submitted itstender directly. The respondents 5 & 6 in W.P.No.23934 of 2008had also submitted their tenders as they were sponsored by theDGR. On opening the tenders, it was found that all theparticipants had quoted same price and therefore, the General https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Manager, BSNL, Erode, decided to split up the security servicecontract and allot the same to all the participants. The workorder was accordingly issued. The petitioner TEXCO is aggrievedby the same and therefore, it has come forward with W.P.No.23934of 2008, challenging the proceedings of the General Manager,BSNL, Erode in (1) G180/Security Guard/Limited Tender/Vol.II/08-09/34/dated 08.09.2008 and (2) G180/Security Guard /LimitedTender/Vol.II/08-0935/dated 08.09.2008 and for furtherdirection to the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.23934 of 2008 toaward the entire contract to the petitioner TEXCO as per theirrepresentation dated 28.07.2008.7. The grounds raised in all these Writ Petitions can besummed up as under:-(1) The BSNL has got no power to recruitfresh Ex-servicemen sponsored by Private SecurityAgencies in the place of Ex-servicemen sponsoredby the petitioner TEXCO. (2) The BSNL has no power to split upthe security service contract and to allot thesame to all the tenderers, who had quoted sameprice.(3) As per the Instructions issued bythe DGR in Para 20(j), the petitioner TEXCO isentitled to have security service contract inentirety. (4) As per the Instructions of the DGR,the petitioner TEXCO being the senior most amongall the participants in the tender process, itshould have been given preference since the ratequoted in the tender by all the participants wasthe same.(5) The petitioner TEXCO is at presenthaving around 9600 registered Ex-servicemen andif the Private Security Agencies are permitted todo security service contracts to statutorybodies, like the BSNL, not only the benefits ofthe Ex-servicemen will be deprived of, but itwill lead to exploitation of the rights of theEx-servicemen also. (6) The other Instructions such as Para20(i) of the Instructions of the DGR have notbeen complied with by the BSNL.8. In the counter affidavit filed by BSNL, the followingare the main objections:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1) Since the tenderers participated ineach tender had quoted the same price, inorder to extract the work in expeditious andefficient manner, it was decided to split upthe work among all the participants. For thesaid course, there was no objection raised bythe petitioner TEXCO and having not raised anysuch objection in respect of splitting up thework, now, it is not open for the petitionerTEXCO to challenge the same. (B) There is no violation of anyInstructions issued by the DGR and as amatter of fact, the DGR Instructions havebeen strictly complied with. (C) The other respondents in whosefavour the security service contracts havebeen awarded were duly sponsored by the DGRand so there is nothing illegal on the part ofthe BSNL in awarding the Security ServiceContract to them. It is not as though they arepurely Private Security Service Agencies withno empanelment with DGR. (D) It is not mandatory as per theInstructions of the DGR, that BSNL shouldengage only the State Government ownedCorporation for Security Service.9. In the counter affidavit filed by the DGR, thefollowing are the objections:(A) The DGR is empowered only toempanel the Private Security Agencies, whosatisfy the norms and to sponsor such PrivateSecurity Agencies as per the rostermaintained by the DGR. In the case on hand,the Private Security Service Agencies, inwhose favour security service contracts havebeen awarded are all empanelled PrivateSecurity Agencies and they were duly sponsoredas per their seniority and rotation.(B) In respect of awarding ofcontract, such Agencies, including thepetitioner TEXCO, DGR has no role to play.Such sponsorship is not required insofar asthe State Government owned Ex-servicemenCorporations are concerned, as per Office https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Memorandum No. 6/22/93/GL-15/DPE[SC/ST], dated1st February 1999.(C) The contention of the petitionerTEXCO that contract should be awarded only infavour of the petitioner TEXCO is untenable.It is open for BSNL to invite tender from anySecurity Agency that has been empanelled withDGR and the BSNL cannot be precluded frominviting tenders for this purpose. (D) It is absolutely within the domainof the BSNL to award the contract in favourof any Agency, who satisfies the requirementand neither the State Government OwnedCorporation nor any Private Security Agencyhas a right to compel BSNL to award contractonly in his/its favour.10.1. The respondents 6 & 7 in W.P.No.21489 of 2008 havefiled a separate counter, wherein, inter alia, it is stated thatthese respondents had been duly empanelled by the DGR and so thethe said Agencies are eligible for awarding of contract by BSNL.10.2. The Instructions of the DGR speak only ofsponsorship of Private Security Agencies/Public SectorUndertakings for the purpose of awarding contract. If, once sucha sponsorship is completed, thereafter, it is absolutely withinthe domain of the Public Sector Undertakings, like, the BSNL toaward contract. The BSNL is free to invite tender forsecurity service contract and select the best. The petitionerTEXCO cannot compel the BSNL to award the contract only in theirfavour.11. The 5th respondent in W.P.No.21489 of 2008 has fileda separate counter affidavit, wherein he has raised similarcontentions. Besides, it is stated that the respondents 5, 6 & 7in W.P.No.21489 of 2008 have already taken over the job ofproviding security services by employing their men insofar asthe Coimbatore Region is concerned and as a mater of fact, theyhave been doing it from the Month of October 2008 onwards. Theprayer in the Writ Petition that the BSNL should be compelled tocontinue the contract only with the petitioner TEXCO is not atall maintainable.12. The 6th respondent in W.P.No.21788 of 2008 has fileda separate counter, wherein he has also raised similarcontentions. It is further stated that it is open for the BSNL toaward the contract to any Agency that is empanelled with the DGRand the petitioner TEXCO cannot compel the BSNL to award theentire contract only to them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. The 5th respondent in W.P.No.21788 of 2008 has filed aseparate counter affidavit, wherein, he has taken the plea thatthe petitioner TEXCO is not a State Government owned Ex-Servicemen Corporation in terms of Para 12.g of the Instructionsof the DGR. The petitioner TEXCO is not manned by an Officer asdefined in the Instructions of the DGR and it is manned by anOfficer from Indian Administrative Service and a retiredDistrict Revenue Officer from the Revenue Department and thus,the petitioner TEXCO does not satisfy the DGR Instructions.Therefore, it cannot claim any privilege or preference as StateGovernment Owned Ex-Servicemen Corporation. He has referred toInstruction 12 (b) of the Policy Instructions which states thatonly a retired Commissioned Officer of Armed Forces shall be theChairman and other functionaries. But, since the saidInstructions have not been complied with by the petitionerTEXCO, it cannot claim to be the State Government Owned Ex-servicemen Corporation. Under no circumstances, will theCorporation be allowed to continue beyond 8 years as per Para 10(g) of the Policy Instructions of the DGR. Therefore, thepetitioner TEXCO, even assuming that it is a State GovernmentOwned Corporation, cannot be allowed to have the contract formore than 8 years. The 5th respondent and others, in whosefavour the contracts were awarded, are the DGR sponsored Ex-servicemen Security Agencies and therefore, they cannot be termedas "Private Security Agencies" as alleged by the petitionerTEXCO, it is contended.14. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.21489 and 23934 of 2008and the respective counsel appearing for the petitioner and therespective respondents in the rest of the writ petitions and alsothe the 5th respondent in W.P.No.21788 of 2008, who appeared inperson.15. I have carefully considered the rival submissions andthoroughly perused the available records.16. Before going into the facts of the case, let me firstanalyse the Scheme of Re-settlement of Ex-Servicemen. TheDirector General of Re-settlement (DGR) provides employment andself-employment for Ex-servicemen of Armed Forces. One suchScheme available to the Ex-commissioned Officers is provision ofSecurity Services to various establishments. To ensure the secondcareer for the Ex-Servicemen, the DGR begun sponsoring securityagencies since 1992. The Scheme has showed remarkable growth. Inthe prevailing security scenario and the realisation for the needof effective security by major organisations (Government, Public& Private), the requirement has increased manifolds. Therefore,instructions were given by the DGR giving effect from 01.02.2006in this regard. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. The Government of India by Office MemorandumNo.6/22/03-GL-15-DPE (SC/ST), dated 01.02.1994 has instructedall Central Government Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs) totake security cover from security agencies sponsored byDirectorate General Resettlement. In order to regulate thefunctioning of Ex-servicemen Agencies of retired armed forces,commissioned officers, who are empanelled with the DGR, certainInstructions ( in short, "the Instructions") have beenformulated.18.1. As per Instruction 5 of the DGR Instructions,there are three categories of security agencies viz., (a)Individual Proprietorship, (b) ESM Private Limited Company, and(c) State Government Owned ESM Corporations, who are eligible forempanelment. The qualifications, other legal requirements andthe mode of empanelment are unnecessary for these writ petitionsand therefore, narration about the same is avoided.18.2. As per Instruction 12 (g) of the DGR Instructions ,"ESM Corporation will be sponsored to a PSU for a period of twoyears initially which can be further extended by another twoyears based on satisfactory performance. At the end of the fouryears, DGR at its discretion may allow state ESM Corporationsfor another four years at that location, if there is a bulkrequirement of security. Under no circumstances, will theCorporation be allowed to continue beyond eight years at thatlocation. Following this three other Security Agencies in waitingon the roster will be sponsored."18.3. Instruction 12 (b) of the DGR Instructions states" "The Chairman and all other functionaries of the corporationshould ONLY be retired commissioned officers of Armed Forces, whoqualify to be ESM (O). There should be a minimum of threeDirectors". 18.4 Instruction 12 (h) of the DGR Instructions states"Persons employed in other Government / Semi-GovernmentDepartments cannot hold any execute appointment including thethe Board of Directors of the ESM Corporation.Secretary/Director of the concern State RSB cannot concurrentlyhold any Office in the State ESM Corporation and vice versa. 18.5 Instruction 12 (j) of the DGR Instructions states"Any dispensation on any of the above issues will be on theDGR's approval/concurrence only"18.6. Instruction 20 of the DGR Instructions speaks ofsponsorship. Instruction 20 (d) of the DGR Instructions states"The Sponsorship of Security Agency to the Principal Employerwill be done in the order of their seniority of registration atDGR for the State against demand received from the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.7. Instruction 20 (l) of the DGR Instructions states,"In case all agencies sponsored to an employer quote same ratesin their tender, then the employer should award the contract tothe senior most agencies. However, the principal employer mayrefer this case to the DGR for advice if required".19. Subsequently, the Government of India, Ministry ofDefence (Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare) by its OfficialMemorandum No. 496/I/2003/D(Res), dated has directed as follows:"The matter has been reconsidered and ithas been decided with the approval of RakshaMantri that in partial modification of the DEPOM quoted above, State Ex-servicemenCorporations be allowed to apply for securityservices directly before the Central PSUs ortheir units located in their respective stateswithout the sponsorship of DGR, it is requestedthat necessary instructions may kindly be issuedurgently in this regard to all administrativeMinistries/Departments and Chief Executives ofPSUs." 20. A close analysis of all the above Instructions of theCentral Government and DGR would make it manifestly clear thatall Public Sector Undertakings are obliged to enter intoSecurity Service Contracts only with the empanelled SecurityAgencies with DGR or State Government Owned ESM Corporations.Insofar as the State Government Owned ESM Corporations areconcerned, as per the directions of the Central Government dated15.09.2005, to participate in the tender and to enter intosecurity service contract with Public Sector Undertakings, thesaid Corporations need not be sponsored by the DGR. To put itotherwise, the State Government Owned Corporation can directlymake tender applications to the Public Sector Undertakings andenter into contract with them to provide security service. But,insofar as the other agencies are concerned, they should havebeen empanelled by the DGR and they should be sponsored to aparticular PSU as per the further Instructions of the DGR issuedin this regard such as seniority, etc.,.21. In all these Writ Petitions, it is claimed by thepetitioner TEXCO that it is a State Government Owned ESMCorporation. But, it is disputed by the 5th respondent inW.P.No.21788 of 2008 in his counter, wherein he has stated thatsince it is manned by an Officer from Indian AdministrativeService a District Revenue Officer, it cannot claim to be theState Government Owned ESM Corporation, as it does not satisfythe requirements of Instructions 12 (b) and 12 (h) of the DGRInstructions. Though there appears to be some force in the saidcontention of the 5th respondent in W.P.No.21788 of 2008, onthat ground this court cannot hold that the petitioner is not aState Government Owned ESM Corporation. According to Instruction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12 (a) of the DGR Instructions, a Corporation to become a Staterun ESM Corporation, should be approved by respective StateGovernment / Union Territory Government and a approvalcertificate duly singed by the Chief Secretary of the State willbe necessary for the ESM Corporation to be empanelled as DGRsecurity agency, based on which the ESM Corporation will beeligible for DGR sponsorship all over the country. There are twoaspects in this matter. First of all, it is not the case of the5th respondent that the petitioner TEXCO has not been approvedby the Government of Tamil Nadu. If once, it is found that ithas been approved by the State Government, then it is a StateGovernment Owned ESM Corporation for all practical purposes. Ofcourse, it is true that the Chairman should only be a retiredCommissioned Officer, who is qualified to be ESM (O) and personsemployed in other Government / Central Government Departmentscannot hold executive appointment including the Board ofDirectors of ESM Corporation. In the case on hand, it is truethat the petitioner TEXCO is manned by the Chairman-cum-ManagingDirector, who is an officer from Indian Administrative Serviceand the General manger of the petitioner TEXCO is a DistrictRevenue Officer from Revenue Department. Thus holding of thesetwo vital posts by non-commissioned officers of Armed Forces isagainst Instruction 12 (b) of the DGR Instructions. But, thatwill not make the entire Corporation as a non GovernmentalOrganisation. If the 5th respondent, feels aggrieved in anymanner, because of holding of these two vital posts by the non-commissioned officers, his remedy lies elsewhere and not inthese writ petitions.22. There is no controversy that the participants in thetender process in all the writ petitions baring the petitionerTEXCO, are all empanelled security agencies and they were dulysponsored by the DGR to the BSNL for the purposes of awardingsecurity service contracts. As rightly stated in the counteraffidavit filed by the DGR, the job of the DGR is over, as soonas the sponsorship of security service agencies to PSUs is made.In respect of the tender notice, tender conditions and awardingof contract, the DGR has no role to play at all.23. As per the directions of the Central Government, allPSUs have to award contracts to Ex-servicemen Security Agenciesindicating all other tender conditions. The only prohibition isthat no PSU can not enter into any contract with any Ex-servicemen Security Agency for security service purpose, unlessthe said agency has been sponsored by the DGR or the same is theState Government Owned/Run ESM Corporation.24. Admittedly, the participants in the tenders in allthe writ petitions quoted the same price respectively. Therefore,it had to be decided by the BSNL in each case as to how toallot the work. The BSNL had therefore, decided to split thework, so as to give the same to all the participants equally. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Admittedly, there was no objection raised by the petitionerTEXCO instead, in one of the Writ Petitions, the Official of thePetitioner TEXCO participated in the proceedings in which it wasdecided by the BSNL to split up the work and to allot the sameequally among all the participants.25. Now the contention of the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral is that the petitioner TEXCO, being the State Governmentrun Corporation, is entitled for preference in the matter ofawarding of contract as per Instruction 20 (l) of the DGRInstructions which states that in case all the agenciessponsored to the employer quote same rates, then, the employershould award the contract to a senior most agency. According tothe learned Additional Advocate General, the petitionerCorporation is the senior most agency and therefore, thesecurity service contract should have been awarded only to thepetitioner TEXCO. 26. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for some ofthe respondents would submit that this Instruction is notapplicable to the petitioner TEXCO. This guideline is applicableonly in respect of the agencies, which are sponsored by the DGRto the employer. The learned counsel would further contend thatin the case on hand, since the petitioner TEXCO was notsponsored by the DGR, such Instruction viz., 20 (l) of the DGRInstructions is not applicable. Further it is contended thatthe term "seniority" relates only to the security agencies runby Individual Partnership or ESM Private Limited Companies andnot to the State Government Owned Corporation. 27. I have carefully considered the above submissionsand I am not convinced by the argument of the learned AdditionalAdvocate General in this regard. Admittedly, the petitionerTEXCO has not been sponsored by the DGR. A plain reading ofInstruction 20 (l) of the DGR Instructions, as it is contended bythe learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents, wouldgo to show that it speaks of the seniority of the agenciessponsored by the DGR. If this Instruction is read along withthe other DGR Instructions, the same would go to show that theterm "seniority" only refers to the age of the Proprietor /Director of an agency. Therefore, the seniority as referred toin Instruction 20 (i) of the DGR Instructions cannot have anyapplication to a State Government Owned Corporation. For thesetwo reasons viz., (1) this Instruction applies only to agenciessponsored by the DGR and (2) the term "Seniority" refers only tothe agencies other than the State Government run Corporations, Iam of the view that the State Government Owned Corporation cannothave any preferential right over the other agencies, who weresponsored by the DGR. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. It is the contention of the Additional AdvocateGeneral that the State Government Owned Corporation has beenestablished for the welfare and resettlement of Ex-servicemen andtheir dependants and the members of the Corporation or share-holders of the Corporation and therefore, the petitioner TEXCOshould have been given preference by BSNL over the PrivateSecurity Agencies. This argument may appear to be attractive, butit does not persuade the Court for the reasons which follow.29. As I have already recorded in the earlier paragraphsof this order, the DGR has formulated the Scheme available tothe Ex-commissioned Officers of the three services to providesecurity service to various establishments. It is not as thoughthe private agencies are run outside the scope of the Schemeformulated by the DGR. The aim of the Scheme is not only toprovide employment to Ex-servicemen , but also to provideopportunity for Ex-commissioned Officers of Armed Forces to runsecurity service agencies. Thus, this Scheme provides benefits tothe Ex-commissioned Officers as well as the Ex-servicemen and itserves duel purpose. Only with a view to keep a complete controlover these agencies which are run by the Ex-CommissionedOfficers, several measures have been taken by way of instructionsto empanel the agencies to sponsor the same. At the time ofempanelling the agencies run by the Ex-Commissioned Officers,there are various formalities, which are to be followed andthere are various legal requirements, which are to be satisfiedby the said Ex-commissioned Officers of Armed Forces. If once,the said agency is empanelled by the DGR, it becomes fullyeligible to appoint Ex-servicemen as its members and then toenter into contracts with PSUs for providing security services byemploying Ex-servicemen.30. There may be several such agencies run by Ex-Commissioned Officers and if all are allowed to directlyparticipate in the tenders and enter into contract with PSUs,some may get opportunity very frequently and some may not getopportunity for ever. That is one of the reasons, why, there isa requirement that such agency should be sponsored by the DGR. Toprovide equal opportunity for all and to distribute the work tovarious agencies in a fair manner, further instructions have beenissued by the DGR to sponsor the agencies on the basis ofrotation and on the basis of seniority. Thus, it is ensured thatevery agency, which is run by the Ex-Commissioned Officers getsome opportunity to provide security service to PSUs. Thus theinterest of the empanelled agency run by the Ex-CommissionedOfficers is also protected.32. While participating in the tender, suppose, all suchsponsored agencies quote the same price then, as per theInstructions of the DGR, the senior most agency that is, interms of the age of the Ex-commissioned Officer, who is eithersole Proprietor or the Director of the agency should be given https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preference. Therefore, the Instruction 20 (l) of the DGRInstructions can be applied only in the above manner and not inany other manner, so as to give preference to a State GovernmentOwned Corporation. 33. The contention of the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that if the contract is given to the State GovernmentOwned Corporation that will be in the interest of the Ex-servicemen, whereas if the contract is given to the PrivateAgencies, it will not be in the interest of the Ex-servicemen,can not be accepted, as the same has no basis at all. 33. In all these cases, since all the participants hadquoted same price, in order to provide equal opportunity forall the agencies including the State Government OwnedCorporation, the BSNL has rightly split up the work andallotted the same to all the agencies including the StateGovernment Owned Corporation equally. The petitioner TEXCO didnot challenge the same by raising any objection when thedecision to split up was taken. The petitioner TEXCO has cometo the Court only after the work order was issued after splittingup of the work. In the matter of contract, the BSNL should havefreedom to contract, of course, subject to the condition thatsuch contract should be entered only with State Government OwnedCorporation or DGR sponsored Agencies. No one can compel theBSNL to award the contract only in his favour. Unless, the act ofthe BSNL is shown to be highly arbitrary, this Court cannotinterfere with the decision of the BSNL in splitting the work.But, I am unable to find any reason to hold that in all thesecases, the action of the BSNL to split up the work and to allotthe same to all the participants equally is arbitrary orunreasonable in any manner.34. In W.P.No.21489 of 2008, the prayer is, to quash thecontract awarded on 28.07.2008 in respect of Coimbatore Regionand to continue the earlier contract issued in favour of thePetitioner TEXCO. In my considered opinion, the said prayer ishighly misconceived. When the petitioner TEXCO has participatedin the tender, it is not now open for them to insist the BSNL tocontinue the earlier contract under which the petitioner had beenproviding the Security Services. As I have already statedsupra, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award ofthe contract in favour of the respondents 4 to 7 in W.P.No.21489of 2008 and the petitioner. Therefore, W.P.No.21489 of 2008 mustfail.35. In W.P.No.21788 of 2008, the prayer is only for amandamus to direct the BSNL to allot the entire contract forproviding security services in respect of Chennai Region to thepetitioner TEXCO. Here, the petitioner TEXCO has not chosen tochallenge the award of contract in favour of the respondents 4 to7 in W.P.No.21788 of 2008. Therefore, without challenging the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same, it is not open for them to seek for a mandamus to directthe BSNL to award the entire contract to them. Assuming that thepetitioner TEXCO has challenged the award of contract in favourof the respondents 4 to 7, still in my considered opinion, forthe conclusions arrived at earlier, this writ petition mustfail.36. In respect of W.P.No.23934 of 2008, the petitionerTEXCO has challenged the award of contract in favour of therespondents 5 & 6. As I have already concluded supra, I do notfind anything irregular or illegal in the same and therefore,this writ petition also must fail.37. In the result, W.P.Nos.21489, 21788 and 23934 of2008 fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 are also dismissed.These Petitions coming on for further hearing on this dayin the presence of the said Advocates the Court made thefollowing order:-After the common order was passed in W.P.No.21489, 21788and 23934/2008 the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerin W.P.No.23934/2008 made a submission that on account of theinterim order passed by this Court in so far as Erode Region isconcerned, the petitioner TEXCO has been providing securityservices for BSNL till today and the petitioner needs a week'stime to make alternative arrangements.In viw of the above inrespct of W.P.NO.23934 of 2008 thepetitioner TEXCO shall be permited to continu the secutiryService for BSNL, Erode Region for one week from today.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkmkTo1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Ex-serviceman's Corporation Ltd.,(TEXCO"), Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking, Major Parameswaran Memorial Building, No.2K, West Mada Street, Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.2.The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Information & Telecommunication, New Delhi.3.The Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, West Block – IV, R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110 066. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Chief General Manager, BSNL (Tamil Nadu Circle), Anna Salai, Chennai.5.The Principal General Manager, BSNL, Coimbatore 641 011.6.The Dy. General Manager, (Admin.,) Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, No.89, Millers Road, Chennai 600 010.7.The Chief General manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.8.The General manager (BSNL), Gandhiji Road, Erode, 640 011.9. The Secretary to GovernmentGovernment of IndiaDepartment of Ex Serviceman WelfareMinistry of DefenceNew Delhi-110. The Secretary to Government of IndiaMinistry of FinanceNew Delhi.2 ccs to Mr.S. Veerabagu, ACGSC, Sr. 16766, 167671 cc to Mr.K.R. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, SR. 170351 cc to mr.S. Sathish Rajan, Advocate, SR. 166981 cc to Mr.N. Biswanath, Advocate, SR. 168442 ccs to MR.J. Thilagaraj, Advocate, SR. 166941 cc to M/s. Bala and Daisy, Advocate, Sr. 166691 cc to Mr.S. Udayakumar, Senior Stnding Counsel for SR. 166483 ccs to Mrs. Pushpa menon, Advocate, SR. 167535 ccs to MR. K. Malaiappan, party in person, Sr. 16654Writ Petition Nos.21489, 21788 and 23934 of 2008 PA (CO)kk