Jai Kishan and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - 5. after having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments aforesaid, we are of the view that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the supreme court in chaman lal's case (supra) as well as of the high court in rattan singh's case (supra) and nirmala devi's case (supra). 6. it would be pertinent to mention here that the state of haryana had preferred an appeal before the supreme court titled as state of haryana and anr.amarjeet chaudhary, j.1. this order will dispose of civil writ petition nos. 10254 of 1993, 519, 520, 521, 522, 4915, 4916, 5378, 6004, 6355, 11720 of 1994, 869 and 5428 of 1995 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.2. in all these petitions, the relief sought is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners from the date they acquired higher qualifications.3. learned counsel for the petitioners contends that though there are numerous pronouncements on this proposition yet the respondent-state is not granting higher pay scales to the petitioners from the date they acquired higher qualification. in order to fortify his submission, counsel relied upon chaman lal and ors. v. state of haryana, a.i.r. 1987 s.c. 1621, rattan singh and ors. v. state of haryana and ors., (1995-1)109 p.l.r. 274 and recent judgment of this court in nirmala devi and ors. v. the state of haryana and ors., civil writ petition no. 14688 of 1993, decided on 25.7.1995.4. on the other hand, mr. sibal contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the higher pay scales.5. after having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments aforesaid, we are of the view that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the supreme court in chaman lal's case (supra) as well as of the high court in rattan singh's case (supra) and nirmala devi's case (supra).6. it would be pertinent to mention here that the state of haryana had preferred an appeal before the supreme court titled as state of haryana and anr. v. om prakash arya and ors., 1995(1) r.s.j. 219, against the orders of the high court, which was dismissed by holding that the petitioners, in that case, were entitled to the higher pay scales in terms of the circular/letter dated july 23, 1957 issued by the erstwhile state of punjab. in nirmala devi's case (supra), we have recently held that 'if a judgment by the apex court or the high court is delivered and the same achieves finality, the benefit of the said judgment is to be granted to all similarly situated persons.'7. for the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to release the pay scales to the petitioners as per their qualifications with effect from the date they acquired higher qualifications. the arrears of salary be paid to the petitioners within a period of six months. however, there will be no order as to costs.