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