IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2008 (S/S) Ved Prakash …..Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 1. None for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Giriesh Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.1. The petitioner who works as a Messenger in State Bank of India had filed this writ petition way back in the year 1995 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which stood transferred to this High Court under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act. The petitioner has made the following prayers in the writ petition: (a) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 to continue the petitioner on the post of the messenger in the department and to pay him all the back wages and other benefits for which he is entitled. (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner on the post of the Messenger in the State Bank of India. (c) to issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) to award costs of this petition to the petitioner.” The Bank in Paragraph 5 of its counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner had only worked during the period between 15.2.1985 to 30.4.1985 as Messenger 2 and such engagement was not by the Bank but was by the Local Implementation Committee and the petitioner was never engaged by the Bank in any capacity. Apart from this, the Local Implementation Committee is totally separate and distinct entity from the Bank. Apart from aforesaid, the petitioner was engaged for small period as a Messenger or Canteen Boy. Learned counsel for the Bank has also stated that the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has approached this Court after ten years. After going through the pleadings and the objections raised by the Bank in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that as regard the first prayer, no orders can be passed by this Court as the petitioner has not been able to make out any case in his favour for issuing a writ as he has not been able to establish in the first place that he was appointed by a competent authority. In fact, his appointment as a Messenger itself has been rebutted by the State Bank of India, of which no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by yet. Regarding second prayer for regularisation, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others Vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.07.2011 Rathour