Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) an appropriate order or orders and/or direction or directions do issue to protect the rights and interests of the petitioner in the matter of his re-instatement and eventual absorption in the respondent Bank. (b) An appropriate order or orders quashing and setting aside the letter dated 11-10-95 (Annexure-E) issued by the Bank Authorities".
(2.) The petitioner was admittedly appointed by the respondent Bank as a temporary employee. He allegedly worked for 26 days by an order dated 18-5-1973. He altogether worked for 70 days under six different orders of temporary appointment in the year 1973 and 82 days in the year 1974 under three different orders and also 45 days under two different orders passed in the year 1975. It appears that in the year 1975 he was appointed on 21-3-1975 whereas the last order of appointment in the year 1974 was on 4-7-1974, pursuant whereto, he worked up to 5-5-1975. While he was continuing in service, he was deputed along with a clerk working in the said Branch to deposit a sum of RS. 2,45000/- and was involved in a Criminal case. He was allegedly acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Midnapore on 6-3-95.
(3.) So far as the first prayer is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner despite repeated query by this Court could not point out the existence of any legal right of the petitioner so as to enable this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus.;