Blacklisting Order Not Disclosing Any Duration Violative Of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) Of Constitution: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of appropriate orders for quashing the impugned indefinite blacklisting order and restoring the contract awarded to the petitioner for the supply of 168 ECCE Educators and 40 Technical Instructors in District Shahjahanpur under a bid.

The Division Bench of Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi and Justice Ajit Kumar held, “The blacklisting order impugned in the petition does not disclose any duration and therefore the order is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed as arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”

Advocate Narendra Singh represented the Petitioner while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, engaged in the business of providing manpower and outsourcing services to various government departments, challenged certain administrative actions taken by the respondents under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, and a blacklisting order was passed against it. The State Government issued a Government Order governing contractual engagements under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. Pursuant thereto, a GeM bid was floated along with the additional Terms and Conditions. The petitioner participated in the said bid process and was selected for the execution of training-related work.

The petitioner was required to publish an advertisement on the Seva Yojna portal for the engagement of 168 ECCE Educators. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to prepare a merit-wise list of 504 candidates after verification of their original documents, while also raising certain issues with regard to performance. The petitioner submitted its response to the said communication. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed, placing the petitioner under blacklisting, without specifying the duration thereof.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the blacklisting order was passed for an indefinite time period. It did not specify the period of blacklisting and failed to refer to or consider the detailed replies and supporting documents submitted by the petitioner. It was further noted that the requirement to prepare a merit list of 504 candidates after verification of original documents was not in the original engagement terms.

The Bench stated, “Debarment has been recognized as a method of disciplining deviant suppliers, however, an order of debarment can never be for an indefinite period as it is in the present case. Therefore, in the light of settled legal principles, the Court must balance the need to protect public interest with procedural fairness, ensuring that administrative measures such as blacklisting are neither excessively punitive nor devoid of reasoned legal justification. Indefinite blacklisting order cannot be legally justified as it carries serious civil consequences and therefore, it must be based on clear reasons, a defined duration, and adherence to principles of natural justice.”

The Bench further made it clear that the the impugned blacklisting order was issued by the District Basic Education Officer who, in the light of the Government Order, did not possess the authority to adjudicate such issues. “The District Basic Education Officer’s role is limited to forwarding complaints to the District Magistrate, who is the designated as decision-making authority. Therefore, the blacklisting order passed by the District Basic Education Officer is bad for want of lawful authority and hence, deserves to be quashed”, it added.

Thus, quashing the impugned order, the Bench partly allowed the writ petition.

Cause Title: M/S Wizitec Private Limited v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:6600-DB)

Click here to read/download Order