Item No. 40, DJ/- SBCWP NO. 8993/2010 Dhanwantri Narayan Vyas Vs. State Bank of India Order dt: 04th October, 2010 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8993/2010 Dhanwantri Narayan Vyas Vs. State Bank of India DATE OF ORDER ::: 04th October, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, for the petitioner. --- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of 'Customer Relationship Executive (Personal Banking)' on contract basis to the respondent- State Bank of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'SBI') in pursuance to advertisement Annex-2 dated 29.11.2007 claims a mandamus from this Court by way of present writ petition to direct the respondent- SBI to give joining on the post of 'Customer Relationship Executive (Personal Banking)' in pursuance of the offer of the respondent- Bank vide Annex-3 letter dated 08.08.2008. The said contract if given, was to have a period of two years from 25.08.2008 to 24.08.2010. Certain formalities and verification of the testimonials etc. were required from the side of the petitioner to be Item No. 40, DJ/- SBCWP NO. 8993/2010 Dhanwantri Narayan Vyas Vs. State Bank of India Order dt: 04th October, 2010 2/4 completed if he intended to join on the said position with the respondent- SBI. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the documents placed on record, it appears that the petitioner was already working as officer trainee at Nagaur branch of a private Bank known as 'Indusid Bank' vide Annex-1 dated 02.04.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was required to serve a one month's notice on the said private Bank, the previous employer, in order to obtain proper discharge certificate/reliving order from the earlier employer and submit the same to the respondent- SBI. However, since the respondent- SBI did not provide any time to petitioner for joining on the said position, the petitioner withdrew his resignation from the earlier employer i.e. Indusid Bank and rejoined the duties with Indusid Bank on the position upon which he was working. 4. By the present writ petition, the petitioner claims appointment in pursuance of the offer letter of the respondent- SBI Annex-3 dated 08.08.2008 at this stage after lapse of more than two years and the contract period even though which could have been the life of the contract of the petitioner being over on the ground that the petitioner has made in the meanwhile several representations to respondent-SBI for allowing him to join the respondent- SBI on the aforesaid position, however, that having not been provided, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking mandamus direction Item No. 40, DJ/- SBCWP NO. 8993/2010 Dhanwantri Narayan Vyas Vs. State Bank of India Order dt: 04th October, 2010 3/4 to the respondent- SBI. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and upon perusal of the documents on record, this Court is unable to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner raised herein. Doubtless, it is that the petitioner upon being offered appointment as 'Customer Relationship Executive (Personal Banking)' vide offer letter dated 08.08.2008 (Annex-3) was bound to comply with the terms and conditions of the said appointment order, and also obviously furnish the discharge certificate/reliving order from earlier employer, namely, Indusid Bank Ltd. with which he was serving as Officer Trainee. The petitioner for whatever reasons best known to him failed to furnish such discharge certificate/reliving order from the earlier employer; and in these circumstances, the respondent – Bank apparently could not appoint the petitioner on the aforesaid position for which no blame can be laid at the doors of the respondent- SBI. If the petitioner failed to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the offer letter, no contract of employment or no contract of service between the petitioner and the respondent- SBI can be said to come in existence and, therefore, the question of giving any mandamus direction to the respondent Bank simply cannot arise. No arbitrariness or breach of principles of natural justice on the part of respondent-SBI is also gathered from the averments made in the writ petition or from the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The insistence of the petitioner on the respondent Bank at this stage by Item No. 40, DJ/- SBCWP NO. 8993/2010 Dhanwantri Narayan Vyas Vs. State Bank of India Order dt: 04th October, 2010 4/4 making such repeated representations have not been responded at any point of time by the respondent- Bank, which clearly shows that respondent- Bank did not choose to wait any longer for the petitioner and might have gone ahead with the appointment of any other person on that position after lapse of more than two years. Invoking jurisdiction by this Court for this purpose on the basis of such representations at this stage cannot be appreciated. In the considered opinion of this Court, no mandamus direction can be given to the respondent- Bank for the said purpose. 6. The writ petition is found wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the respondent forthwith. (DR. VINEET KOTHARI), J. DJ/- 40