appointment. Of course, to give promotional avenues to persons working in various categories in the Department, they were included in the feeder category, so that, if they are qualified, they can also be considered for promotion. On including them in the feeder category, the appellants did not owe any duty to send them for training, so that they will acquire the qualification. The appellants have chosen to send persons in the feeder category for training for the first time in 2003. The list for the same was prepared for the first time in 2002. The first respondent/writ petitioner was included in the first batch and on completion of his training, he was appointed also. We find nothing illegal or irrational in the said action of the appellants. In Ext.P9, there was a specific stipulation that the seniority of the transferee appointee in that post will be counted only from the date on which he commences officiation in that category. No one has challenged Ext.P9 and it has become final also. Even otherwise, having regard to the facts of the case, on acquisition of qualification at the earliest point of time, the first respondent/writ petitioner was posted as Steward. The appellants never had any obligation under the Rules to send the claimants for training, so that they acquire the qualification. Therefore, the claim made in the Writ Petition was plainly untenable. We fully agree with the appellants that the declaration made by the learned
