JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ
petition is taken up for disposal
2. By this common order, I would be disposing of above mentioned two writ petitions as both
the writ petitions raise common question regarding the
reservation of contract for security services in favor
of ex-servicemen and requirement for registration with
Director General of Resettlement.
3. By these writ petitions, petitioners
seek directions to Government of NCT of Delhi and N.C,T.D. not to violate the fundamental rights of the
petitioner firm for equality and freedom of trade and
business as being enshrined and guaranteed under
Article 14,16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioners also seek directions to N.C.T.D. for
issuance of the tender document and for allowing the
petitioners to participate inf the tenders.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners do not question the welfare measure as
well as the object and the aim in introducing the
provision of security services being manned by ex
servicemen. He himself states that such a measure is
designed for the welfare of ex serviceman and would not
violate Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the
constitution of India. The petitioners’ grievance
emanates out of the manner in which this is sought to
be implemented. as per the counsel, terms and
conditions of the contract require that the security
services agencies have to be either proprietorship or a
Private Ltd. Company run by ex-servicemen. Further a
condition is stipulated that 90% of the employees
should be ex-servicemen.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this
condition is not being implemented and followed. He
seeks quashing of letter dated 21.7.1999, bearing
No. F.O/E in CPWD/3049 and office memorandum F.O/E in
CPWD/3049 by respondents for issuance of
security/sanitation work tenders to only those security
agencies registered with Director General of
Resettlement as arbitrary, illegal and
unconstitutional. He submits that he would give to the
respondent’s counsel a list of contracts, where the
security agencies are neither owned by ex-servicemen
nor 90% of ex serviceman are employed. Counsel for
respondents 2 to 4 submits that in case any such list
with full particulars is received, they would make
enquiries and act in accordance with law.
6. Let the list of any such contravention be
supplied by counsel for the petitioner within 4 weeks.
Counsel at this stage submits that condition regarding
security agencies being owned by ex-servicemen officers
who are either individual proprietors or Directors of
private limited companies, should not be there. It
should be open for any individual to run the security
agencies only be engaging ex-servicemen. This would
really tantamount to submitting that the ex-servicemen
officers should not be rehabilitated and the
reservation should be confined only to ex-serviceman
employees. The reservation made is two-fold. One is
for ex-serviceman as officers, who are
proprietors/owners to manage the agency, secondly the
agency must employ 90% ex-servicemen. There is no
rationale or basis to quash the reservation in respect
of officers. This Challenge has to fail.
7. Writ petitions stand disposed of in the
above terms.