Patna HC Dismisses Unemployed Engineer's Plea for 15% Tender Reservation in Rural Roads Programme

A Class-III contractor sought to compel Bihar's Rural Works Department to carve out 15% of tender works for unemployed engineers; the Division Bench declined, holding that tender structuring is an executive policy domain.

The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ritesh Ranjan, an unemployed engineer registered as a Class-III contractor under Bihar's Rural Works Department, who challenged three Notice Inviting Tenders issued under the Rural Road Strengthening and Management Programme (MMGSUY). Ranjan contended that the State had violated its own policy framework by clubbing multiple roads into large packages, pushing tender values beyond the reach of Class-III contractors and defeating a reservation meant for unemployed engineers. A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh, with the judgment authored by Justice Sudhir Singh, held that courts cannot, under Article 226, direct the State to structure tenders in a particular manner or mandate a 15% reservation in contractual awards, particularly in large-scale infrastructure programmes where packaging decisions rest within the executive domain.

The Dispute Before the Court

Ranjan, a resident of Banjari, Rohtas district, Bihar, is registered as a Class-III contractor with the Rural Works Department. He challenged Notice Inviting Tender Nos. RRSMP-03/2024-25, RRSMP-07/2024-25, and RRSMP-08/2024-25, all issued under the Mukhya Mantri Gramin Sadak Unnayan Yojna (MMGSUY).

His case rested on three State policy instruments: Memo No. 1399 dated 31 January 2008, a Resolution dated 16 August 2013, and Letter No. 2390 dated 10 April 2015. He argued that these documents collectively required the State to reserve a portion of tender works, specifically 15%, for unemployed engineers. By clubbing several roads into single large packages, the respondent authorities had, in his submission, inflated the estimated bid values beyond the permissible ceiling for Class-III contractors, effectively locking out unemployed engineers from participation.

The reliefs sought were wide: quashing of the three tenders, a direction to ensure 15% reservation for unemployed engineers, a restraint on clubbing or packaging of tenders, compliance with the three policy instruments, and permission for Ranjan himself to participate in the impugned tenders pending the petition.

The State's Defence

The State of Bihar, represented by Advocate General P.K. Shahi, offered a detailed justification for the packaging approach. The Rural Road Strengthening and Management Programme was launched following approval by the Bihar Council of Ministers on 14 November 2024 as part of MMGSUY. The programme involves long-term maintenance and management of rural roads for a period of seven years, which the State said necessitated efficient planning, monitoring, and execution at scale.

Block-wise and sub-division-wise packages were prepared pursuant to Resolution No. 1718 dated 15 November 2024, described as an administrative and policy decision suited to the magnitude of the scheme. The State also pointed out that eligibility conditions had been relaxed and participation through Joint Venture (JV) had been permitted, enabling contractors across different categories to participate. On this basis, the respondents denied any violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and denied that the petitioner had been excluded from participation.

The Legal Issue

The bench framed the central question precisely: whether, in exercise of powers under Article 226, the court could direct the respondent authorities to provide or carve out a 15% reservation for unemployed engineers and Class-III contractors under the impugned tender process, when the manner of packaging, formulation of eligibility conditions, and structuring of tenders had been undertaken by the State as a matter of policy decision keeping in view the nature, magnitude, and long-term maintenance requirements of the scheme.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench began from the settled position that fixation of tender conditions, structuring of public contracts, determination of eligibility criteria, and formulation of procurement methodology fall primarily within the executive domain. Judicial review in such matters is confined to examining the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. Courts do not sit in appeal over policy decisions of the State in contractual matters unless the action is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, or violative of constitutional provisions.

The bench drew on five Supreme Court decisions to anchor this position. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Supreme Court held that the court's duty is to confine itself to the question of legality, examining whether the decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, breached natural justice, reached a decision no reasonable tribunal would have reached, or abused its powers. The bench quoted the Supreme Court's formulation directly: “It is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair.”

In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Supreme Court had cautioned that judicial review should not be used to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, and that interference in tender matters is warranted only where the process is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational. The bench quoted the Supreme Court's warning that “attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances… to make mountains out of molehills” should be resisted, since such interference may hold up public works for years and increase project costs.

In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, the Supreme Court reiterated that framing of eligibility conditions and tender terms is essentially a policy decision and courts should not interfere unless such conditions are arbitrary or tailor-made to favour someone. The bench noted the principle that fixation of the value of a tender is entirely within the purview of the executive, with courts having hardly any role except to strike down action proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, the Supreme Court held that the employer or author of tender documents is the best judge of its requirements, and constitutional courts must defer to that understanding unless perversity or mala fide is apparent on the face of the record.

In Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Supreme Court emphasised that courts must exercise restraint in contractual matters and must not interfere unless there is clear arbitrariness or mala fide. The bench quoted the Supreme Court's observation that “courts must give 'fair play in the joints' to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract.”

Applying these principles, the bench found that the impugned tenders had been floated pursuant to a large-scale infrastructure and maintenance programme involving long-term obligations. The packaging of works and structuring of tenders had been undertaken on the basis of administrative requirements and policy considerations. The mere fact that Ranjan and similarly situated contractors were unable to participate due to the scale of packages did not, by itself, render the tender conditions arbitrary or unconstitutional. The State had also demonstrated that JV participation was permitted and eligibility conditions had been relaxed to broaden participation.

On the Policy Instruments Relied Upon

The bench addressed Ranjan's reliance on Memo No. 1399 dated 31 January 2008, Resolution dated 16 August 2013, and Letter No. 2390 dated 10 April 2015 directly. It accepted that these instruments reflect the State's policy intent to provide opportunities to unemployed engineers. However, it held that such policy does not create an enforceable right to compel the State to structure tenders in a particular manner or to mandate reservation in contract awards, especially in large-scale infrastructure projects.

The bench added that courts cannot direct the State to frame tender conditions in a particular manner or impose reservation or allotment in contractual matters, as such directions would amount to encroaching upon the policy domain of the executive. Unless the policy is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional, judicial interference is not warranted. No such showing had been made here.

Outcome

The bench answered the principal issue in the negative. It held that no direction could be issued to the respondent authorities to provide 15% reservation or allotment of tender works, or to interfere with the structuring and packaging of the impugned tenders, as the same had been undertaken pursuant to a policy decision of the State for execution of a large-scale rural road strengthening and maintenance programme. The fixation of eligibility conditions and manner of packaging of works were held to fall within the exclusive domain of the executive, not amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction in the absence of arbitrariness or mala fide.

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5041 of 2025 was dismissed on 7 May 2026. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.