TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred challenging a tender process initiated by a notice inviting tender (in short, NIT) dated 14th February, 2018 for online recruitment purposes of candidates of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.
(2.) Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that responding to the said NIT the petitioner no.1 submitted the tender in two folders, one being the technical proposal and other being the financial proposal. The basic details inter alia provided that general technical evaluation would be allowed, however, there would be no item-wise technical evaluation. The scope of work was also detailed in the said NIT under serial nos. 1.0 to 1.21 including inter alia processing of applications, designing of format, deployment of manpower, manual frisking, monitoring of the entire examination, preparation of the list of eligible candidates.
(3.) Drawing the attention of this Court to clauses 7, 8 and 9 of paragraph 3 pertaining to opening of technical proposal, he submits that though the said clauses inter alia provided that pursuant to scrutiny and decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee (in short, TEC), summary list of technically qualified bidders will be uploaded in the web portal on 2nd April, 2018, the TEC did so after a substantial delay. The said result was uploaded by a digitally signed document generated on 3rd May, 2018 but surprisingly the comparative chart with and without work load factor was created and uploaded on 5th May, 2018. From such sequence it is explicit that the result was declared prior to evaluation of marks of the participants and was tailor- made. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the documents annexed at pages 88 and 89 of writ petition.;