HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29381 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the tender awarded to respondent no. 4 under the orders passed by University on 15.5.2025. 4. The claim raised by the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4 being an employee of the University got extra favour from the University itself for award of tender in respect of two shops out of the four shops. However, he does not dispute regarding other two shops, tender has been awarded in his favour. 5. Sri Shashank Shekar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the University submits that there is no bar for employee of the University to participate under the Notice inviting Tender for allotment of shops in question. He further submits that as per the Rules of the University, daily- wage employees are not considered to be regular employee on the role of University under the terms and condition of Non-Teaching Employees vide Rule 50(ii) and respondent no. 4 is a daily-wage employee. He Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha, Nitin Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shashank Shekhar Singh, Siddhartha Srivastava Ammar Ahmad Khan .....Petitioner(s) Aligarh Muslim University And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) submits that since the Rules of the University are applicable only to the regular employees and not daily wagers, the respondent no. 4 does not become ipso facto employee for his engagement on daily-wage basis. 6. Shri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 submits that petitioner had already challenged the tender awarded to him before the Consumer Forum but had withdrawn the same after filing petition before this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respected parties and having perused the records, we find from the eligibility criteria prescribed in clause 6 that there is no bar for an employee of the University to be applicant under the Notice inviting Tender inasmuch respondent no. 4 being daily wager cannot be treated as employee of the University under the Service Rules framed by the University. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any rule or regulation to the contrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner could also not substantiate the allegations leveled in the writ petition that there was some extra favour shown to the respondent no. 4 while awarding tender. Petitioner also does not dispute that in respect of two shops the highest bidder has been awarded tender and the respondent no. 4 was the highest bidder in respect of two other shops which were allotted to him. In the circumstances, in the absence of any material being placed before the Court to substantiate the allegations leveled in the writ petition and the grounds raised, we do not find any merit in the claim set up by the petitioner in this petition. 9. Petition is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. October 9, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 29381 of 2025 2 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad