Arun Kumar, C.J. - (1.) These appeals involve common questions and, therefore, they have been clubbed together. The appellants filed writ petitions in this Court claiming to be entitled to be appointed/absorbed in the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores with the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'R.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter). The case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that they are I.T.I. certificate holder and they had been selected as trainees under the Apprentice Programme of the R.S.R.T.C. They have annexed similar letters in each petition whereby the RSRTC selected them under the training programme. One of such letters is dated 11th Nov. 1976 informing Radhyey Shyam Soni one of the petitioners, about his selection as a trainee under the Apprentice Programme. As per this letter, the duration of the training period is said to be three years. The said period was liable to be extended. One of the terms contained in this letter is relevant for this purpose of the present controversy and, therefore, is being reproduced: 12. On successful completion of the training, the trainee may be appointed on a suitable post in the Corporation in a regular pay scale of pay against existing vacancies or kept on a penal of trained persons and appointed as soon as a vacancy arises. Appointment will be as per rules. The appellants were posted as trainees as per their request in the stores of the work-shops and they have been working there since then. The appellants claim that they have been working on the posts of Sub-inspector Stores and they are entitled to be appointed regularly to the said posts since they have been working for long on the said posts. The writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. Hence these appeals.
(2.) The main question for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the appellants were appointed to the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores. The initial letters conveying selections of the appellants under the training programme are similar and reference has already been made to open of such letter. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, however, rely on an office order posting the appellants in the Stores Section where under they were additionally required to furnish some security and they were also given additional stipend. The relevant office orders reproduced as under : "RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR No. F. (24) /CME/TRG CELL/ 76/5521 Dated 24.1.1977. OFFICER ORDER It has been decided that the apprentices trainees may be posted in stores section training. They will have to provide cash security as follows if posted for stores training:- 1. I.T.I. apprentice who are matriculate against the post of A.S.S.I. Rs. 250/-. 2. Diploma holders against the post of S.S.I. Rs. 500/-. It is further ordered that as the work of stores is little more difficult and responsible, the apprentice appointed in stores will be paid an additional stipend of Rs. 10/- in the case of I.T.1 and Rs. 20/- in the case of Diploma holders. In case where the trainees find it difficult to pay the full amount immediately they may be required to pay Rs. 100/- in cash of I.T.I. and Rs. 200/- in cash of Diploma holders in the beginning. The balance amount can be deducted from their stipend in monthly instalment of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 20/- respectively within a period of 15 months. This bears the approval of the Chairman. Sd/ CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER" In our view, this office order does not help the appellants. This letter only conveys the posting of the appellants as apprentice trainees in the Stores Section for training. This office order cannot be treated to mean that the appellants were posted against the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores. In similar terns is neither office order dated 17.2.1977 whereby the appellants were posted for the purpose of training Stores in the Stores Section as per their desire. These office orders, cannot be taken as postings against the post of Sub-Inspector Stores. These are clearly orders indicating posting as trainees which means that the appellants continued as trainees and they were never appointed to the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores in any capacity whatsoever. The appellants consist of third batch of successful trainees and, therefore, became entitled to be appointed to the posts of Assistant Gr. 1. However, the respondents have explained in the counter affidavit filed by them that since the appellants belonged to third batch of trainees who had passed the test and since there were no vacant posts of Artisan Gr.I by that time, the appellants were not appointed as Artisan Gr.l. They were- only appointed on the posts of Artisan Gr. 11 in the year 1981. A reference has also been made in the counter affidavit to a settlement dated 21.2.1979 between the respondent RSRTC and the Rajasthan State Roadways Employee's Union, Jaipur, where under the I.T.I. matriculate trainees working in the Stores against the posts of Sub-inspector Stores were held entitled to be appointed to the posts of Sub-inspector stores which remain vacant after absorption of Artisan Gr.l. Sub- Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10.12.1987 in Arun Kumar Sharma v. RSRTC, promotion of the departmental candidate became impermissible because the court directed that the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores were liable to be filled only by way of direct recruitment.
(3.) From the above facts it is clear that the appellants were only appointed as trainees in the stores of the workshops of the respondent-Corporation. They were never appointed even as Artisan Gr.-I not to speak of Sub-Inspector Stores which is a post one step higher than Artisan Gr.-I. The appellants were only appointed as Artisan Gr.-II and have no claim to be appointed as Sub-Inspector Stores. The settlement between the employees' union and the Corporation shows that they could at best lay their claim for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores after absorption of the entire list of Artisan Gr.-I. The very initial order of appointment under the training programme shows that the trainees were required to be appointed against suitable posts subject 'to availability of the posts. The stage for appointment against the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores never came and, therefore, the appellants remained trainees till they were appointed as Artisan Gr. II. The appellants were fully conscious of the fact that they were mere trainees. That is why they kept on applying for recruitment as Sub Inspector Stores as and when the posts were advertised for being filled by direct recruitment. The respondents have been denied the averments that the appellants ever discharged the functions of the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores. However, keeping in view the legal position that the appellants were appointed only as trainees which was as per their own choice the appellants cannot have any claim to the posts of Sub-Inspector Stores. The case set up by the appellants is untenable. The appeals have no merit and deserve to be dismissed.;