JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. I.A. No. 5486 of 2015 (LPA 553 of 2015) For the reasons carved out in the instant application and there being no serious objection from the other side, the delay of 04 days in filing L.P.A. No. 553 of 2015 is hereby condoned. 2. I.A. No. 5486 of 2015, stands disposed of accordingly. L.P.A. No. 553 of 2015 & L.P.A. No. 550 of 2015 3. Since Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate appears for respondent writ petitioner Ashutosh Shankar in L.P.A. No. 553 of 2015, Caveat No. 98 of 2015 stands discharged. 4. Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 31st July, 2015 whereby two writ petitions being W.P.S. No. 6068 of 2008, filed by respondent no. 1writ petitioner Ashutosh Shankar and other being W.P.S. No. 6389 of 2008 filed by respondent no. 1writ petitioner Mahesh Kumar, the instant two Letters Patent Appeals viz. L.P.A. No. 553 of 2015 and L.P.A. No. 550 of 2015 have been filed by the appellant State Bank of India. 5. Since there was delay of only 04 days in filing L.P.A. No. 553 of 2015, the same stands condoned vide our separate order passed in I.A. No. 5486 of 2015. L.P.A. No. 553 of 2015 is thus ripe for consideration. However in L.P.A. No. 550 of 2015 arisen from W.P.S. No. 6389 of 2008 Registry has pointed out certain defects which have not been removed by the appellant Bank till date. Not only that, even a formal application for condonation of delay has also not been filed, may be there being delay of 04 days only. Since in both the appeals common issues are involved and for that purpose clubbed by the learned Writ Court also resulting into passing of a common judgment impugned herein, we have also taken up both the appeals on board for their consideration as the order passed in L.P.A. No. 553 of 2015 which is otherwise ripe for its consideration, will govern L.P.A. No. 550 of 2015 also. We thus, ignoring the defects pointed out by the Registry in L.P.A. No. 550 of 2015, considering that adjourning the matter for that purpose would delay consideration of these two appeals unnecessarily, more so when one of the respondents writ petitioner namely Ashutosh Shankar have already filed contempt proceeding before the learned Writ Court where in the show cause, the appellant Bank has taken an excuse of filing Letters Patent Appeal before this Court and get the contempt proceeding stalled. 6. Both the respondents writ petitioners (herein after to be referred as respondents) pursuant to the Advertisement No. CRPD/SCO/200607/07, applied for the post of Customer Relationship Executive (CRE) with the appellant Bank which was admittedly a contractual employment for two years. The respondents got this appointment on 7th August, 2007 as is clear from the letter of offer of appointment. It contains certain conditions also wherein there is not a whisper about acquiring of AMFI certificate from AMFI and CIF (Certified Insurance Facilitator) from IRDA. However it is mentioned in para5 of the letter of offer of appointment that their services shall be governed by the State Bank of India Service Rules for Customer Relationship Executives, Personal Banking 2007 (for short Service Rules of 2007). There is another letter dated 20th August, 2007 available on record which appears to be a Welcome Letter as one finds from the contents of para2 of the said letter sent to both the respondents. Herein also we do not find any such condition. It is thereafter, on 26th June 2008 both the respondents were communicated the decision to terminate their services however, they were granted 30 days time to get the aforesaid two certificates failing which the appellant Bank would terminate their services on completion of 30 days from the receipt of the said letter in terms of Rule 29(2)3 of Service Rules of 2007. Both of them were then slapped with the letter dated 29th July, 2008 of termination of their services, thus filing into aforesaid two different writ petitions which now stand allowed vide impugned order dated 31st July, 2015. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 8. Mr. Both of them were then slapped with the letter dated 29th July, 2008 of termination of their services, thus filing into aforesaid two different writ petitions which now stand allowed vide impugned order dated 31st July, 2015. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bank submitted that since both the respondents could not acquire the aforesaid two certificates which were mandatory and made clear to them even in the Welcome Letter, the Bank was within its right to terminate the services of both the respondents on the strength of Rule 29(2)3 of Service Rules of 2007. In support of his arguments he has relied upon a Single Bench Judgment of Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14622 of 2012 to submit that in the similar set of circumstances a number of employees of the Bank, whose services were terminated when moved Patna High Court, their writ petitions were dismissed. The photo stat copy of the said judgment is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant Bank. 9. We do not find any substance in the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank. Not only there is no condition of acquiring the aforesaid two certificates incorporated in the letters of offer of appointment dated 7th August, 2007 vide which both the respondents were appointed as Customer Relationship Executive on contract basis for two years, even in the Welcome Letter dated 20th August, 2007 available with the supplementary affidavit, there is not a whisper about the aforesaid two certificates. We are surprised as to how in its communication dated 26th June 2008 addressed to the respondents from the General Manager (Network II) of the appellant Bank, referred to the Welcome Letter through which they were asked to acquire the aforesaid two certificates within the stipulated period. On specific query put to Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bank, whether the appellant Bank is in possession of any other letter sent to both the respondents allegedly in September 2007 asking them for acquiring the aforesaid two certificates, he categorically stated at the Bar that the appellant Bank is not in possession of any such letter. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Bank, whether the appellant Bank is in possession of any other letter sent to both the respondents allegedly in September 2007 asking them for acquiring the aforesaid two certificates, he categorically stated at the Bar that the appellant Bank is not in possession of any such letter. This simply shows that there is only one Welcome Letter available on record dated 20th August, 2007 visavis appointment of both the respondents which contains only five paragraphs, which are reproduced herein: “APPOINTMENT AS CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP EXECUTIVE With reference to your acceptance of our offer of appointment vide letter No. HR:PC:SPL:90 dated 07.08.2007, your are appointed in the Bank as Customer Relationship Executive on contract basis for a period of 2 years from 20.08.2007 to 19.08.2009 (both days inclusive), on the terms and conditions given in the SBI Service Rules for Customer Relationship Executive (PB). (Copy enclosed) 2. We welcome you to State Bank of India and trust our association will be mutually beneficial. 3. Your appointment in the Bank is provisional and is subject to the verification of Caste/Tribe certificates, if the verification reveals that the claim to belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Class or any information as the case may be, is false, the services will be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons and without prejudice to such further action as may be taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for production of false certificates. 4. You are advised to report to the Assistant General Manager (HR) at LHO, Patna, today i.e. 20.08.2007. You are further advised to report at State Bank Learning Centre, Khajpura, Bailey Road, Patna at 9.30 A.M on 21.08.2007 for attending an Induction Programme for Customer Relationship Executive (PB) starting from 21.08.2007 to 30.08.2007. Your stay arrangements will be made at the SBLC. 5. Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly signed by you indicating your acceptance of the terms and conditions of contract of the service.” 10. Your stay arrangements will be made at the SBLC. 5. Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly signed by you indicating your acceptance of the terms and conditions of contract of the service.” 10. No doubt in terms of Rule 29(2)3 of Service Rules of 2007, the Bank may at its sole discretion can terminate the contractual appointment by giving one month's notice or one month's gross emoluments in lieu thereof to the officer during the first year of service and thereafter, by giving three months notice or three months gross emoluments in lieu thereof, which position has also been noticed by the learned Writ Court but the fact of the matter is that both the respondents got appointment pursuant to the Advertisement notice in which there was no such condition imposed. Even in the letter of offer of appointment no such condition is inserted. Not only that, subsequently also even in the Welcome Letter addressed to both of them there was no such condition imposed. Both the respondents who otherwise appeared for acquiring both the certificates and one of them namely Ashutosh Shankar had also acquired the same at two different stages but the decision taken by the Bank for terminating their services even before the expiry of the contract period for that reason is not sustainable. This exercise done by the appellant Bank appears to be totally arbitrary in nature which fact is also noticed by the learned Writ Court against the appellant Bank and in favour of the respondents having regard to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “ABL International Limited and Another versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others [ (2004) 3 SCC 553 ]”, wherein at Para2353 it has been observed thus: “23. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.......... 53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution....” 9. 53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution....” 9. We have also perused the Single Bench Judgment of Patna High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank. The said judgment is entirely distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as the employees who had moved the writ Court were working continuously with the Bank even after expiry of the contract period and on the strength of their continuation they claimed vested right to continue in service which plea did not find favour by the learned Writ Court resulting into dismissal of the said writ petition. That is not the factual position in the case on hand. 10. We thus finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment/order dated 31st July, 2007, whereby both the aforesaid writ petitions viz. W.P.S. No. 6068 of 2008 and W.P.S. No. 6389 of 2008 stand allowed, decline to interfere with the said order on any count. The net result is that both the appeals on hand stand dismissed being devoid of any merit.