(1.) The petitioner, hitherto employed as Manager (HR) in the first respondent bank, filed this Writ Petition questioning the order passed by the second respondent on 9/5/2016, accepting her resignation, as illegal and without jurisdiction. She also sought a mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to give effect to the letter dtd. 9/5/2016 issued by the second respondent; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to allow the petitioner to work as a Manager (HR), and to regularly pay her salary w.e.f. April, 2016.
(2.) While Sri I.P. Gairola, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the letter, which the respondents have construed as a letter of resignation, is merely an expression of anguish by the petitioner and nothing more, Sri Alok Mahra, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, would submit that, since the first respondent is not even an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and it is not even the petitioner's claim that there is any violation of a statutory provision - plenary or subordinate, the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked; and the Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable. Learned Counsel would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, (2006) 11 SCC 634 in this regard. In S.S. Rana, the Supreme Court observed thus:
(3.) Even in the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show how the first respondent would fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and since the first respondent is not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as no statutory provision has been violated by respondents 1 and 2 in issuing the proceedings dtd. 9/5/2016, the Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable. The Writ Petition must, therefore, fail on the ground that no writ would lie against the first respondent.