- (1.) The petitioner whose tender for conservancy services was rejected on ground principally that the petitioner had not appended experience certificate, has a grievance that the certificate was to be issued only by the University itself with which the petitioner was working from 01.08.2012 till the time when the tender was floated and a request for the certificate had not been given within time to file it along with the application. The experience certificate which was given subsequently was, however, not useful to the petitioner since there had been also a statement on the same certificate issued on 09.09.2013 that the work was found not satisfactory. I am prepared to see that there cannot be an issue against the petitioner that the experience certificate was not appended along with filled in tender form qualifying that the experience of the petitioner was with the University itself and if the University had itself committed laches in not issuing, it could not have been taken principally against the petitioner. The problem, however, for the petitioner was that since the petitioner's work was treated to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner's application was not considered. The counsel would argue that a characterization that the petitioner's services as not satisfactory had the effect of blacklisting the petitioner and throwing it out of competition and that could not have been done without show cause notice to the petitioner against any action blacklisting the petitioner.
(2.) Any blacklisting has civil consequence and if the experience certificate made a characterization of the petitioner's work as unsatisfactory, the petitioner must have been involved in an enquiry before such expression could be used. I, therefore, hold that the matter will be placed before the authority constituted under the University to direct the University to show cause against the proposed characterization as unsatisfactory work, elicit the petitioner's response and take a decision on the same.
(3.) The University will continue with the finalization of its tender and the petitioner's remedy would be to work out an action for damages, if it turns out that the rejection of the tender was not appropriate. A remedy for specific performance in such a situation in my view is not appropriate and the order also would not afford to the petitioner any action against a restraint of the tender formalities for being completed. Needless to state that in the event of the petitioner's contention being accepted and there is no blacklisting against the petitioner, there will be no fetter against the petitioner participating in any future contracts that could be awarded by the University by tender process or any other transparent process where a competition is feasible.;