TEXCO Vs DGR Empanelled Security Agencies
27. I have carefully considered the above submissions and I am not convinced by the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General in this regard. Admittedly, the petitioner TEXCO has not been sponsored by the DGR. A plain reading of Instruction 20 (l) of the DGR Instructions, as it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents, would go to show that it speaks of the seniority of the agencies sponsored by the DGR. If this Instruction is read along with the other DGR Instructions, the same would go to show that the term "seniority" only refers to the age of the Proprietor / Director of an agency. Therefore, the seniority as referred to in Instruction 20 (i) of the DGR Instructions cannot have any application to a State Government Owned Corporation. For these two reasons viz., (1) this Instruction applies only to agencies sponsored by the DGR and (2) the term "Seniority" refers only to the agencies other than the State Government run Corporations, I am of the view that the State Government Owned Corporation cannot have any preferential right over the other agencies, who were sponsored by the DGR.
28. It is the contention of the Additional Advocate General that the State Government Owned Corporation has been established for the welfare and resettlement of Ex-servicemen and their dependants and the members of the Corporation or share-holders of the Corporation and therefore, the petitioner TEXCO should have been given preference by BSNL over the Private Security Agencies. This argument may appear to be attractive, but it does not persuade the Court for the reasons which follow.
29. As I have already recorded in the earlier paragraphs of this order, the DGR has formulated the Scheme available to the Ex-commissioned Officers of the three services to provide security service to various establishments. It is not as though the private agencies are run outside the scope of the Scheme formulated by the DGR. The aim of the Scheme is not only to provide employment to Ex-servicemen , but also to provide opportunity for Ex-commissioned Officers of Armed Forces to run security service agencies. Thus, this Scheme provides benefits to the Ex-commissioned Officers as well as the Ex-servicemen and it serves duel purpose. Only with a view to keep a complete control over these agencies which are run by the Ex-Commissioned Officers, several measures have been taken by way of instructions to empanel the agencies to sponsor the same. At the time of empanelling the agencies run by the Ex-Commissioned Officers, there are various formalities, which are to be followed and there are various legal requirements, which are to be satisfied by the said Ex-commissioned Officers of Armed Forces. If once, the said agency is empanelled by the DGR, it becomes fully eligible to appoint Ex-servicemen as its members and then to enter into contracts with PSUs for providing security services by employing Ex-servicemen.
30. There may be several such agencies run by Ex-Commissioned Officers and if all are allowed to directly participate in the tenders and enter into contract with PSUs, some may get opportunity very frequently and some may not get opportunity for ever. That is one of the reasons, why, there is a requirement that such agency should be sponsored by the DGR. To provide equal opportunity for all and to distribute the work to various agencies in a fair manner, further instructions have been issued by the DGR to sponsor the agencies on the basis of rotation and on the basis of seniority. Thus, it is ensured that every agency, which is run by the Ex-Commissioned Officers get some opportunity to provide security service to PSUs. Thus the interest of the empanelled agency run by the Ex-Commissioned Officers is also protected.
TEXCO not an DGR Empanelled Corporation
High Court Judgement: TEXCO vs DGR Empanelled Security Agencies in Chennai
High Court of Madras: JUDGMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Ref link above: WP 21788 of 2009- High Court of Madras order dated 22-4-2009
ESM Corporations like TEXCO, (which also applies to PESCO, MESCO, HESCO, etc) having Chairman, Directors from IAS category is illegal. The 5th Respondent in WP No 21788 of 2009 in this order is me. I argued the case in person and other advocates were silent spectators. All the orders passed are based on my arguments and counter affidavits.
With best wishes and regards,
Col K Malaiappan (Retd)
No comments:
Post a Comment