JUDGMENT 1. - Question which requires adjudication in this case is as to whether retirement of the petitioner from the service of the State Bank of BIKANER and Jaipur (for short 'the Bank') w.e.f. 31.10.90 is legally justified and whether the Bank as acted arbitrarily or discriminated the petitioner by nor giving him extension of two years in the service. 2. While Shri C.K. Garg, Senior Advocate, argued that the petitioner has no right to seek extension of service and that its Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision taken by the Bank for non-extension of the service of the petitioner, Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Bank has acted in contravention of Regulation-19 of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations 1979, as well as policy decisions taken by the Bank and also that the Bank has acted against the parameters and criteria fixed by it for deciding the case of extension of service of the employees who attain the age of 58 years. 3. For deciding the aforesaid question in the light of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, a few facts need narration. Petitioner joined service in one of the erstwhile Banks which ultimately merged to form the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. He promoted as Assistant Chief Cashier in Junior Officers grade w.e.f. 1.1.70. Thereafter, he was promoted as Officer Grade-A w.e.f. 1.8.79. When the Bank implemented Pillai Committee's recommendations, the petitioner was fixed in Middle Management Grade Scale-III w.e.f 1.10.79. He was thereafter, promoted as Officer in Senior Management Grade-IV w.e.f. 1.8.85. He was confirmed in this grade w.e.f. 1.8.86. 4. In pursuance of directions given by the Management of the Bank the petitioner appeared for interview on 6.4.87 before a selection committee constituted for the purpose of making recommendation for appointment on the post of Chairman, Sri Ganganagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Even though the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to go on deputation as Chairman, Sri Ganganagar, Kshatriya Gramin Bank, Government of India approved the petitioner's appointment on that post for a period of three years. On receipt of the approval of the Government of India, the Bank placed case of the petitioner before the Executive Committee for deputation to the Kshetriya Gramin Bank. On receipt of the approval of the Government of India, the Bank placed case of the petitioner before the Executive Committee for deputation to the Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The petitioner wrote a letter dated, 22.6.87 to the General Manager (Inspection and Finance) and requested for reconsideration of the question of his deputation. However, by letter dated, 7.7.87 of the General Manager (Inspection and Finance) petitioner was told that he stands relieved w.e.f. 11.7.87 for taking over charge of Sri G. anganagar Ksetriya Gramin Bank. After -one year's working as Chairman the petitioner sough repatriation to the respondent Bank vide his representation dated, 7.11.78 (7.11.88) He also requested to the Managing Director for withdrawal of deputation. In the representation he had also indicated that the same may be treated as notice of his resignation from the office of the Chairman of the Regional Rural Bank in terms of Section 11(1-A) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. He thereafter applied for grant of Privilege Leave. 20 day's Privilege Leave was sanctioned by the Special Officer, Regional Rural Banks. Extension of 14 days leave sought by him was granted by letter dated, 16.1.89. His request for further leave was however, turned-done by the Special Officer (RRD) vide letter dated, 18.3.89. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.3.89 to the General Manager (Planning and Development) of the Bank for his posting so as to enable him to report for duty after expiry of leave. This request of the petitioner was not accepted and by communication dated, 28th March 1989 the petitioner was told that he should report for duty at Sri Ganganagar and that his resignation from the post of Chairman of Regional Rural Bank cannot be treated as effective without acceptance. The petitioner on his part reiterated his stand that he cannot be forced to continue as Chairman of the Regional Rural Bank because his resignation had become effective by operation of law. Respondent Bank also stuck to its stand. This led to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 1838 of 1989, B.C. Jain v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others . Respondent Bank also stuck to its stand. This led to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 1838 of 1989, B.C. Jain v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others . In that writ petition the petitioner prayed for quashing of various communications of the Bank by which he was sought to be compelled to work as Chairman Sri Ganganagar Ksetriya Gramin Bank and also by which the respondent Bank had decided to initiate action against the petitioner. In the writ petition the petitioner pleaded that once he had submitted his resignation and the period of three months had expired, he can no more be treated as Chairman of the Regional Rural Bank and that authorities of the respondent Bank were under an obligation to post him back in the service of the Bank. Respondents pleaded that till a specific notice of resignation was given and it was accepted by the sponsor Bank, the resignation cannot be treated as effective.After considering the rival submissions this Court held : "In my opinion, the plain language of Section-11 (1-A) (c) shows that the Chairman of the Bank has an absolute right to resign his office by giving notice of not less that three months in writing and the exercise of this right is not dependent on the acceptance of the resignation by sponsor Bank." The Court further held : "Therefore, in my view, the respondent Bank and its functionaries were clearly in error in treating the petitioner as Chairman of the Gramin Bank after expiry of the period of the months from the date of receipt of communication dated 7.11.88. Petitioner's resignation became effective with the expiry of the period of three months. Logically, the respondent Bank is not entitled to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner for his failure to joins Sri Ganganagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank after expiry of the period of the three months from the date of receipt of the communication dated, 7.11.88." 5. In this petition, the petitioner has stated that the action of filing of the writ petition for vindication of his right was serious annoyance to the official of the Bank in general and respondents No. 2 and 3 in particular. In this petition, the petitioner has stated that the action of filing of the writ petition for vindication of his right was serious annoyance to the official of the Bank in general and respondents No. 2 and 3 in particular. They started harassing the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 threatened the petitioner on 7.6.89 that since the petitioner has chosen to five writ petition he would see to that the petitioner does not get any extension in service beyond the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner respondent No. 2 and 3 are members of the review committee/ management committee which considers the cases of the officers for grant of extension beyond 58 years. 6. Petitioner's case is that since the date of his joining service, he has not received any adverse report. His performance has always been meritorious and the Bank had given him permission from time to time in view of his good performance. On the basis of his satisfactory service, the petitioner was confirmed as Officer in Middle Management Grade-IV. However when his case for extension of service was considered, the respondent did not give due weightage to his record. The Committee did not find that petitioner unsuitable but arbitrarily took decision to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.10.90 and on that basis, order dated 17.9.90 (Annex. 16) has been passed. Further case of the petitioner is that after he had completed 30 years of service in December, 1983 and he was allowed to continue in service that by itself shows that no element of unsuitability was found by the authorities of the Bank with reference to his integrity, health etc. By making reference to Regulation-19 and Circular dated. 11.1.83 as well as Circular dated, 5th of February 1986, the petitioner has submitted that action of the respondent Bank suffers from lack of bona fides. It is based on extraneous considerations and also discriminatory. 7. Respondent have denied the claim of the petitioner by asserting that the Apex Court has rejected the similar claim made by one Jag Mohan Lal. reference has been made to the decision in S.B.B.J v. Jag Mohan Lal, (1989) (1) SCC 221 . It has been pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner has shown his inability to serve as Chairman of Sri Ganganagar Kshetriya Bank and that by itself shows that the petitioner was unwilling to serve the Bank. reference has been made to the decision in S.B.B.J v. Jag Mohan Lal, (1989) (1) SCC 221 . It has been pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner has shown his inability to serve as Chairman of Sri Ganganagar Kshetriya Bank and that by itself shows that the petitioner was unwilling to serve the Bank. A person who has expressed his unwillingness to serve the Bank cannot be considered as suitable for continuing in service beyond 58 years. Respondent Bank as pleaded that the petitioner has himself shown his incompetence on account of had health or on account of advanced age. He has always tried to remain posted at Jaipur and for that purpose he has evolved false excuses. The competent authority has taken into consideration the record of the petitioner for coming to the conclusion that he does not deserve extension in service. In respect of other person it has been stated that grant of extension of service to other officers does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim extension in the service of the Bank as a matter of right. 8. Regulation-19 of the Regulations deals with the question of retirement and extension of service. This regulation reads as under : "Age of Retirement 19 (1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty eight years or upon the completion of thirty years' service whichever occurs first. Note : However, the existing practice of utilising the service of officer beyond the age of 58 years by considering individual cases for grant of extension will continue only in respect of employees who joined the service as workmen or as officers before the 19th July, 1969. Further, such employees may be granted extension in service instead of re-employment as is the case in the State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Saurashtra. A suitable diary note should be made in this regard and carried over at intervals, to ensure that this factor is not overlooked at the time when the cases of employees who joined on or after 19th July, 1969 come up for consideration (PER/32/80 dated 20.5.1990. A suitable diary note should be made in this regard and carried over at intervals, to ensure that this factor is not overlooked at the time when the cases of employees who joined on or after 19th July, 1969 come up for consideration (PER/32/80 dated 20.5.1990. Provided that the competent authority may at its discretion extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or had completed 30 years service as the case may, be should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. Provided further that an officer who has joined the service of the Bank either as an officer or otherwise on or after the 19th July, 1969 and attained the age of 58 years, shall not he granted any further extension in service. This will be effective from 20th December, 1984). Provided further that an officer may, at the discretion of the Executive Committee, he retired from the Bank's service after he has attained 50 years service as the case. may be, by giving him three month's notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof. Provided further that an officer who has completed 25 years service may be permitted by the Executive Committee to retire from the Bank's subject to his giving three months notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof unless this requirements is wholly or partly waived." 9. For the purpose of exercise of its power to grant extension respondent Bank has framed guidelines after considering the representation made by the Officers Association. These guidelines are contained in Circular No. P & C/1/83. This was followed by Circular No. P & C/5/86. Paragraphs-1, 2 and 3 of the guideli. For the purpose of exercise of its power to grant extension respondent Bank has framed guidelines after considering the representation made by the Officers Association. These guidelines are contained in Circular No. P & C/1/83. This was followed by Circular No. P & C/5/86. Paragraphs-1, 2 and 3 of the guidelines contained in the document marked as Ex. E alongwith Circular dated, 11.1.83 are: " 1. Good health It should he ensured that the Bank is not burdened with officers who are keeping indifferent health. The officer should have continuous satisfactory physical fitness immediately preceding 3 years. Paragraphs-1, 2 and 3 of the guidelines contained in the document marked as Ex. E alongwith Circular dated, 11.1.83 are: " 1. Good health It should he ensured that the Bank is not burdened with officers who are keeping indifferent health. The officer should have continuous satisfactory physical fitness immediately preceding 3 years. Where the officer's physical fitness is found to have deteriorating immediately prior to granting extension, he will be retired from the Bank's service on attaining the age of 58 years. However, availing of sick leave immediately preceding extensions should not alone be a basis for not granting extension in service, excepting chronic illness which may disable the officer to perform normal duties over a long period. 2. Integrity beyond reproach An official against whom disciplinary proceeding have been initiated, his case for extension in service should he examined in the light of the nature of charges and his involvement. It is not the intention that all officers against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. have automatically to be retired. In case the charges of vigilance potential etc., extending undue benefits/facilities to the clientele of the Bank during the course of their incumbency are found, their cases for extension should not he considered, if the charges are prima facie against the interest of the Bank. 3. Continued utility It will he necessary to rigorously scrutinies cases of extension 58 years of age, which would he granted strictly on the basis of continued good performance and after ensuring that the services of the officer will prove useful to the Bank in fulfillings its goals and social obligations. This should be more so for senior level officers. The continued utility of an officer may have to he judged on the basis of his performance normally during the preceding three years at the time his case is considered for granting extension in service coupled with requirements by way of good health and integrity beyond reproach. Thus, merely the fact that a particular officer has earned 'Average' reports during the last three years cannot, perhaps, be reckoned as a factor warranting his retirement as long as his performance in the preceding 3 years prior thereto is acceptable to the Bank consistent with the nature of duties. Thus, merely the fact that a particular officer has earned 'Average' reports during the last three years cannot, perhaps, be reckoned as a factor warranting his retirement as long as his performance in the preceding 3 years prior thereto is acceptable to the Bank consistent with the nature of duties. In brief, continued utility of the official has to be assessed in a general way and not merely with reference only to confidential reports for last three years, and in doing so a positive view should emerge that the continuance of the officer's service in his existing grade/capacity would be useful to the Bank in all its filed of activities, in a manner that the Bank is not restricted in continuing to entrust him with responsibilities relating to normal placements commensurate with his seniority and grade." Paragraph-6 of Circular dated, 5.2.86 is also important and is therefore, quoted below : "While it is obvious that objectively compiled confidential report are of tremendous value from the view-point of human resources development, these assume an added importance at the time of considering cases of extension in service because the purpose of such 'review exercise' is to decide whether or not it would be desirable for the organisation to continue to avail itself of the services of experienced officers who have put in 25/30 years of services and/or attained the age of 50, 55 or 58 years. Where an objective appraisal of an officer's .performance for the immediate preceding 3 years reveals adverse feature like indifferent/failing health and/or doubtful integrity and/or below average performance, it raises a valid question regarding the officer's continued utility to the Bank and hence whether it would be feasible to grant extension in service to him/her." 10. Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 came to be enacted by the Parliament for the incorporation, regulation and winding up of Regional Rural Bans with a view to develop rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, created and other facilities particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agriculture labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Section-2 of this Act defines the Board as Board of Directors of the Regional Rural Bank. Chairman is a person appointed or re-appointed under section-11(1). Section-2 of this Act defines the Board as Board of Directors of the Regional Rural Bank. Chairman is a person appointed or re-appointed under section-11(1). Sponsor Bank is a Bank by which a particular regional rural Bank has been sponsored. Section-11(1) as it stood prior to 28.9.88 provided for appointment of Chairman of the Regional Rural Bank by the Central Government by an amendment made effective from 28.9.88. The sponsor Bank has been empowered to appoint an individual to be Chairman of a Regional Rural Bank. Chairman is control the Management of the affairs of the Regional Rural Banks subject to the superintendence, control and directions of the Board. Chairman holds office for a fixed tenure but the sponsor Bank has a right to terminate such tenure before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11(1). He is also liable to be removed by the sponsor Bank at any time. Of course, before an order of removal is made, opportunity of showing cause has to be given to the concerned person. 11. In State of Assam v. Vasant Kumar Das, 1973 (1) SCC 461 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the Government servant has no right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation and if he is retained beyond that age it is only in exercise of the discretion of the Government and the fact that certain persons were found fit to be continued in service does not mean that others who were not so found fit had been discriminated against. The Court further held that the executive instructions contained in the Memorandum issued by the Government do not confer any right on the Government servant. That was a case in which the Memorandum issued by the Government of Assam contained provision that no Government servant will be entitled to the benefit of increased age of compulsory retirement unless he has been permitted to continue in service after the age of 55 years, after the appointing authority is satisfied that he is efficient and is physically fir for further Government service. Fact's found in each of the cases of the respondents which have been noted in the judgment go to show that on the basis of the record of those particular respondents and particularly reports of their working it was decided not to give extension to them in service. Fact's found in each of the cases of the respondents which have been noted in the judgment go to show that on the basis of the record of those particular respondents and particularly reports of their working it was decided not to give extension to them in service. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had ignored material facts while coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Government suffers from arbitrainess. 12. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Jag Mohan Lal, 1989 (1) suppl. SCC 221 , their Lordships held that proviso to Regulation-19 (1) of the Regulations conferred discretion on the Bank to extend the service of any Officer and no right is conferred on the retiring officer. The Court then observed:- "Bank however, is required to consider the case,of the individual officers with due regard to (i) continued utility ; (ii) good health ; and (iii) integrity beyond reproach of the officer. If the Officer lacks one or the other, the Bank is not bound to give extension of service. In this case, the Bank has shown to the High Court that the case of respondent was considered and he did not fit in the said guidelines. The High Court does not sit in an appeal against that decisions. The High Court under Articles 226 cannot review that decisions." 13. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that by granting extension to some and not to others Bank has discriminated the respondent. 14. In the light of the provisions referred to hereinabove and the principles of law did down by the Supreme Court in Stare of Assam v. Basant Kumar (supra) and S.B.B.J. v. Jag Mohan Lal (supra), the facts which have been brought on record in the form of pleadings as well as material which has been placed for perusal of the Court on behalf of the respondent Bank deserve a closer scrutiny. Admittedly, the petitioner had joined service of the erstwhile Bank in the years 1953 and he was given extension of service after attaining the age of 55 years. Bio-data of the petitioner which has been furnished by the Bank shows that he worked as Assistant Chief Cashier at S.M.S. Highway Branch, Jaipur between March 1967 to November, 1968. He worked at Collectorate Branch, Jaipur, as Assistant Accountant. In the same capacity he worked S.M.S. Highway Branch till August 1969. Bio-data of the petitioner which has been furnished by the Bank shows that he worked as Assistant Chief Cashier at S.M.S. Highway Branch, Jaipur between March 1967 to November, 1968. He worked at Collectorate Branch, Jaipur, as Assistant Accountant. In the same capacity he worked S.M.S. Highway Branch till August 1969. Between August 1969 to December 1973 worked as Branch Manager at Gogunda, from January 1974 to October 1979 he worked as Assistant Accountant at R.B. Road Branch, Kota from 17.10.79 to 30.6.83 worked as Internal Auditor. Between 8.8.83 to 19.8.85 he worked as Planning officer, Udaipur Zone. Between August 1985 to July 1987 he worked in the department of Banding Operations at the Head Office in the capacity of Manager. In October, 1987 he was posted at Chairman of Kshetriya Gramin Bank. He was posted Branch Inspector at the Head Office on 7.5.90 and continued there till 31.10.90 he case of the petitioner was placed for consideration before the review committee. The column of service record, following note has been recorded. "Shri Jain has filed a writ petition No. 1838/89 and Stay application No. 1929/89 against the Bank in the High Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur." In Col. (C) relating to performance it has been recorded : "Over-all performance of the petitioner during the last three years has been rated as above average." In Col. (D) under the heading 'General' he has been shown to be unauthorisedly absent from 12.7.89 to 6.5.90. In regard to his service record of preceding three years following remarks have entered :1986Remarks of the Reporting Authority : (1) Present Responsibilities : Manager, Banking Operations Department. (2) Performance Above average, follow up with the branches and Zonal heads is good, has been helping the management in formulating polices. (3) Suitability for Higher Positions Enjoys goods health personality is good, and has flexibility of mind with good imagination, is impartial and magnanimous. Understands the working of social and economic forces effecting the further of the Organisation, has a progressive outlook and is sufficiently strong willed. Over all performance has been satisfactory. Remarks of the Reviewing Authority : Personality Normal, Soft Soft spoken. General Remarks : No disagreement. Potentiality : he is discharging his duties satisfactory. He is as official of above average potential. 1987 Remarks of the Reporting Authority: (1) Present Responsibilities Chairman, sriganganagar, Kshctriya Gramin Bank, Sriganganagar. Over all performance has been satisfactory. Remarks of the Reviewing Authority : Personality Normal, Soft Soft spoken. General Remarks : No disagreement. Potentiality : he is discharging his duties satisfactory. He is as official of above average potential. 1987 Remarks of the Reporting Authority: (1) Present Responsibilities Chairman, sriganganagar, Kshctriya Gramin Bank, Sriganganagar. (2) performance : Above average, possesses satisfactory decisions making judgment and management skills. Has above average administrative abilities. (3) Suitability for Higher Positions : Maintains goods health and is active, seems to have reached his level. Remarks of the Reviewing Authority : No disagreement. Potentiality : Well placed in his current assignment. 1988 Remarks of the Reporting Authority: (1) Present Responsibilities : Chairman, Ganganagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. (2) Performance : Average Possesses average decision making management and human relations skills.: "An unwilling worker and has not contributed in any manner towards formulating policies for the growth of the Bank. He has tendered his resignation from the post of Chairman GKSB and the same is under consideration." (3) Suitability for Higher position Maintains normal health and is active. Has reached his level. Remarks of the Reviewing Authority : (1) Personality : has a good personality. (2) General Remarks : I had no occasion to know of any particular traits of this officer. His decision to resign from the post of the Chairman of the Regional Rural Bank does indicate unwillingness to take up responsible and challenging assignments. Potentiality : Suitable for managing Agricultural Oriented branches." 15. In Column relating to potential, where it is required to be indicated, as to whether continuance of the officer in the service of the Bank will be useful, following remarks has been given "His service continues to he useful." Thereafter, the Chief Inspector gave the following remarks : "Recommended extension up to 17.10.92 when the petitioner was to reach the age of 60 years." The reviewing committee however, made the following note : "Looking to the over-all utility of the officer, he may be retired at the age of 58 years i.e. 17.10.90." 16. On a close scrutiny of the record produced by the Bank and particularly the record relating to consideration made by the Bank for extension of the service of the petitioner, it is apparent that the review committee of the Bank has not directed itself specifically to the questions of continued utility, goods health and integrity. On a close scrutiny of the record produced by the Bank and particularly the record relating to consideration made by the Bank for extension of the service of the petitioner, it is apparent that the review committee of the Bank has not directed itself specifically to the questions of continued utility, goods health and integrity. What has greatly influenced the review committee is that the petitioner has resigned from the post of Chairman, Regional Rural Bank and that he has filed a petition before the High Court alongwith the stay application. That apart, the petitioner has been treated as unauthorisedly absent between 12.3.89 to 6.5.90. These important factors have to be taken into consideration in the light of the fact that in paragraph-25 of the writ petition the petitioner has made a specific allegation to the effect that respondent No. 3, Shri K.L. Magan who was holding the office of the General Manager, (Planning and Development) in the respondent Bank had threatened him with adverse consequence in the matter of extension in service beyond 58 years because of filing of the writ petition. The respondent have in their reply made a bald denial in para 4.12. This paragraph of the reply is supported by an affidavit of the Officer Incharge and he has verified the contents of the reply on the basis of his knowledge based on official record. Respondent No. 3 has been joined as a party by name but no affidavit by the respondent No. 3 has been filed to controvert the averments made in para-25 of the writ petition. More-over, no explanation has been offered by the respondents as to with what purpose the note has been given regarding action of the petitioner of filing of the petition and the stay application against the Bank. That apart, it is clear that the Bank has treated the petitioner to be un-authority absent from 12.3.89 to 6.5.90. This is apparently on account of the view adopted by the functionaries of the Bank that the petitioner continued to be Chairman of Sriganganagar Gramin Bank even after expiry of period of three months counted from the date of his resignation. That view has been found to be erroneous by this Court. This is apparently on account of the view adopted by the functionaries of the Bank that the petitioner continued to be Chairman of Sriganganagar Gramin Bank even after expiry of period of three months counted from the date of his resignation. That view has been found to be erroneous by this Court. The Court has found that the petitioner's resignation became effective with the expiry of period of three months in terms of Section-11 (1-A) (c) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It is, therefore, clear that in taking decision on. the question of extension of service of the petitioner the respondent Bank was.influenced by extraneous factors like filing of the writ petitioner by the petitioner and his having remained unauthorisedly absent. Incidentally, respondent No. 3 against whom allegation has been levelled by the petitioner and which allegation has remained un-controverted, was a member of the view committee. All these factors show that the petitioner's case was not dealth farily by the functionaries of the Bank. Rather the decision of the review committee is based primarily on account of their unhappiness with the petitioner because, he had tendered- resignation from the post of Chairman of Sriganganagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank and had filed writ petition before this Court. There would have been title justification for retiring him at age of 58 years, even though he was rated as above average in Col. No. (c) and his service is shown to be useful to the Bank. 17. Shri Garg emphasised on the fact that the petitioner had himself treated his health to be poor and therefore, there was justification for the review committee to decline extension of the service of the petitioner is not supported by the record. A perusal of the report shows that at no point of time the functionaries of the Bank as well as the review committees considered the petitioner's health to be factor for not granting extension in hi service. 18. Another argument of Shri Garg that the petitioner's action of tendering resignation should be treated as lack of utility in the service of the Bank does not merit acceptance. It is not the case of the respondents that at any point of time any adversity has been detected in the working of the petitioner. 18. Another argument of Shri Garg that the petitioner's action of tendering resignation should be treated as lack of utility in the service of the Bank does not merit acceptance. It is not the case of the respondents that at any point of time any adversity has been detected in the working of the petitioner. The very fact that his performance has been rated as above average during three years i.e. 1986, 1987 and 1988 negatives the plea of lack of utility of the service of the petitioner. As Chairman of the Sriganganagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank the petitioner was on a different assignment and there is nothing on record to show that as Chairman of the Regional Rural Bank the petitioner had any role to play in the service of the Bank. His disinclination to continue as Chairman of.the Bank cannot by itself be taken as a factor to form an opinion that the petitioner lacks utility for service in the Bank. A conclusion to this effect could not have not have been reached merely on the basis of the petitioner's tendering resignation from the post of Chairman, Sriganganagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. In Jag Mohan Lal's case on which emphasis has been placed by Shri Grag, respondent had refused to take charge of the Branch Manager at Jaipur where the was posted and the management had to cancel his posting. That act of Jag Mohan Lal clearly related "to his working as an officer of the Bank and it had nothing to do with his posting outside the service of the Bank. In the case of the petitioner his total period of working with the Bank and his record does not show that at any point of time he had shown his unwillingness to serve the Bank or his performance was rated as below standard. 19. On the basis of the above discussion, I am clearly of the opinion that the respondent Bank and its review committee has not considered case of the petitioner for extension of service in fair and impartial manner. Denial of extension to the petitioner is not based on consideration of the relevant factors enumerated in the guidelines ; rather it is based on extraneous reasons of which reference has been made herein-above. 20. Denial of extension to the petitioner is not based on consideration of the relevant factors enumerated in the guidelines ; rather it is based on extraneous reasons of which reference has been made herein-above. 20. In State of Assam v. Basant Kumar (supra) as also in Jag Mohan Lal's case their Lordships have held that mere fact of grant of extension to some and refusal to others does not result in discrimination. It appears that in those cases specific facts were not placed before the Court and even though, as a principle, it is not possible to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been denied equal treatment before law, I am constrained to observe that the record placed before this Court in respect of some of the officers show that the review committee of the Bank and had not adopted a uniform yard-stick for deciding the cases of extension of service. In the case of one Shri S.L. Kamra, an officer of MMG Scale No. 2, CBI had made recommendation for initiation of departmental action for major penalty. Officer concerned was however left off with a minor penalty. In case of Shri U.D. Vashisht, another officer of MMG Scale-II, a fraud of Rs. 9.03 Lacs took place during his tenure at Karol bagh Branch of the Bank and the incumbent was found to be negligent C.B.I. registered a case and that was under investigation when extension was granted to him in the year 1991. In the case of Shri R.D. Duggal, an officer on MMG Scale-II prosecution was recommended by the C.B.I. after thorough investigation and the Bank sanctioned his prosecution. Case was pending trial against him when a decision was taken in February 1991 for grant of extension to him. It the case of Shri K.N. Khanna extension in service was granted even though he was punished with stoppage of two grade increments in the years 1979 on account of his passing for payment a forged draft. Officers like Shri D.R. Sukhia, Shri C.D. Ojha, Shri R.K. Beaspal, Shri C.B.L. Sharma and Shri R.B.L. Sharma were given extension Shri S.P. Puri was given extension when he was facing inquiry by the C.B.I. and Shri S.L. Golecha was given extensions when vigilance inquiry in respect of disproportionate assets was pending against him. Officers like Shri D.R. Sukhia, Shri C.D. Ojha, Shri R.K. Beaspal, Shri C.B.L. Sharma and Shri R.B.L. Sharma were given extension Shri S.P. Puri was given extension when he was facing inquiry by the C.B.I. and Shri S.L. Golecha was given extensions when vigilance inquiry in respect of disproportionate assets was pending against him. At least four officers have been given extension during 1990 despite punishment. This all shows that altogether different standards have been applied by the review committee in granting extension to the officers. In the case of the petitioner extension has been refused even though the petitioner's performance has been rated as above average. He has been shown to be a person possessing good health and whose integrity is beyond doubt, whereas, in cases of large number of persons who have been punished and in one case where the officer is facing trial on the basis of charge-sheet filed by the C.B.I. extensions have been given. It, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the decision of the Bank is not free from arbitrariness. 21. In Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1991 (1) SCC 212 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that even in matters pertaining to State contracts with private parties, the policy must satisfy the requirement of Article 44. By making reference to large number of decisions including S.G. Jai Singhani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427 ,. the Court observed as under : "Every State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness' which is the crux of Article 14 and basis to the rule law, the system which governs us. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law. Satisfaction of this basic test in every State action is sine qua non to its validity and in this respect the State cannot claim comparison with a private individual even in the filed of contract. This distinction between the State and a private individual in the filed of contract has to be borne in the mind. Arbitrariness is anathema to State action in every sphere and wherever the vice percolates, the Court would not be impeded by technicalities to trace it and strike it down. This is the surest way to ensure the majesty of rule of law guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Arbitrariness is anathema to State action in every sphere and wherever the vice percolates, the Court would not be impeded by technicalities to trace it and strike it down. This is the surest way to ensure the majesty of rule of law guaranteed by the Constitution of India. "Conferment of the power together with the description which goes with it to enable proper exercise of the power is coupled with the duty to shun arbitrariness in its exercise and to promote the object for which the power is conferred, which undoubtedly is public interest and not individual or private gain, whim or caprice of any individual. All persons entrusted with any such power have to bear in mind its necessary concomitant which alone justifies conferment of power under the rule of law. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uniformed by reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whim or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is trite that "he you ever so high, the laws are above you.' This is what men in power must remember always." 22. In S.G. Jain Singhani's (supra) the Apex Court has observed : "The absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be continued within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. In a system governed rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be continued within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision of the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law." 23. If the above quoted observations are applied on the facts of this case it becomes clear that the action of the respondents in not granting extension in service to the petitioner is not free from arbitrariness. 24. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Decision of the respondent Bank is not granting extension in the service of the petitioner is declared as arbitrary and unreasonable. it is accordingly quashed. Respondent Bank is directed to re-consider the question of extension of the service of the petitioner without being influenced by the facts that the petitioner had tendered resignation from the post of Chairman. Sriganganagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank or that he had filed writ petition before the Court or that he was earlier treated as absent from duty. Such reconsideration must be undertaken within a period of three months. While doing so, the Bank shall taken into consideration the observations made in this order with reference to the record of other persons. Decision of the Bank on such reconsideration must be communicated to the petitioner within 15 days of reconsideration. If the petitioner is adjudged suitable for extension he should be given consequential benefits. Costs made easy.Writ allowed. *******