Rakesh Tiwari, J. Re: CAN 7071 of 2016 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. As per Additional Stamp Reporter’s report the appeal is beyond time by 23 days. 2. Considering the averments made in the application we find that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is allowed and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly allowed. 3. Heard learned Counsel on merits of the appeal. 4. This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment & order dated 25th June, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 12393 (W) of 2015 (Pathik Kumar Bhandari Versus State Bank of India & Others). The order is a short one and is quoted below for ready reference: “The petitioner is essentially seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned authorities of the State Bank of India to consider several representations made by him. From the pleadings, it appears that petitioner was never engaged by the State Bank of India. He was merely engaged by an outsource agency to render service in Kaijulimore Branch, State Bank of India, situated in the district of Birbhum, as a canteen boy-cum-cook maintenance services. 5. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived, devoid of any merit and is liable to be summarily dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.” 6. It appears from record that the appellant/petitioner was engaged by a contractor as cook and was never employed by the State Bank of India on any post in any capacity. He used to serve tea to the bank employees and staffs whenever any order was placed in the tea stall of his employer the person running the said canteen. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that two casual labour were required by the said Branch and the Bank sponsored the name of two persons which according to him was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ court has while discussing the petition held that since the petitioner was never engaged even as a casual labourer by the State Bank of India and was an employee an outside agency as a canteen boy-cum-cook, the writ petition has no merit. Aggrieved this appeal has been preferred by him. 9. 8. The writ court has while discussing the petition held that since the petitioner was never engaged even as a casual labourer by the State Bank of India and was an employee an outside agency as a canteen boy-cum-cook, the writ petition has no merit. Aggrieved this appeal has been preferred by him. 9. We find that the appellant is admittedly an employee of a private contractor as cook and to serve tea. The dispute is between two persons; having never been engaged by the bank. Accordingly, the appellant has no legal right to file this appeal as there is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India qua the two persons working in the bank as casual labourer whose names were sponsored. The appellant/petitioner also failed to bring out any distinguishing feature, which could compare him with both the two other persons whose names were sponsored by the Bank. 10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal has no merit and is, thus, dismissed on merits. Since the appeal stands dismissed the application for stay being CAN 7069 of 2016 needs no orders be passed and also stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 11. No orders as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.