//1// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR O R D E R (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1573/1998 TEJ SINGH BHAGOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. & (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1599/1998 KARTAR SINGH SINSINWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date: 04.10.2006. HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J. Mr. Madhav Mitra for the petitioners. Ms. Anita Aggarwal for Mr. G.K. Garg for the respondents. **** Since both the writ petitions involve similar question facts and law, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. The facts of the case of 'Tej Singh Bhagor' are taken as leading case. The petitioner undergone three years of training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). After completion of training for the post of Printer Grade-II, the provisional certificate was issued by the respondents. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for undergoing the training under the Act of 1961 for which the petitioner was allowed to enter into contract and was registered as Apprentice Trainee. Thereafter //2// the petitioner completed the training of 3 years cours successfully. Now the grievance remains regarding appointment on the post of Printer Grade-II as the petitioner is eligible for the said post. Therefore, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of Printer Grade-II. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that appointments were made on vacant posts after undergoing the selection process as per the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Rajasthan Government Subordinate Rules, 1973 and as vide orders dated 23.04.96 and 21.5.96 ban was imposed on fresh appointments, therefore, fresh appointments have not been made. So far as training is concerned, the respondents have not disputed that the petitioner undergone the training. It is further submitted that as per provisions of the Act of 1961, technical training is imparted to willing and eligible candidates at the cost of the State Government with a view to prepare them to carry on their profession by way of welfare measure of the State. It is also submitted that as and when the vacancies arise and appointments are made, the petitioner will be given preference, but the petitioner //3// has got no legal right by virtue of his apprenticeship training and no legal injury has taken place and in such circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1961, it is no doubt that the petitioner has no legal right to ask for appointment on the post of Printer Grade-II merely because the petitioner undergone the training of apprenticeship under the Act of 1961. Not a single person has been given appointment on account of ban and it is not the case that the petitioner is ignored and has not been given preferential treatment. In such circumstances, both the writ petitions are pre-mature and no cause of action is made available to the petitioners to prefer these writ petitions. Further the respondents have given undertaking in the reply that as and when appointments are made, the petitioners will be given preference for appointment on the post of Printer Grade-II/Compositor Grade-II. Consequently, both the writ petitions stand dismissed being pre-mature. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/