JUDGMENT 1. - Since questions of law and facts in all these writ petitions are identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The prayer of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that their services be regularised on the post of Head Time Keeper and Time Keeper from the date of their initial appointment and respondents be directed to give them the pay in the scale of 1120-2050 i.e. the grade of Head Time Keeper from the date they were working on this post with all consequential benefits. 3. The respondent R.S.R.T.C. in its reply pleaded that the petitioners were initially appointed as Cleaner and thereafter their services were regularised on the post of Helper in the pay scale of 255-420. The petitioners were simply asked to prepare duty chart in the time section by the respondents: therefore, this contention of the petitioners is totally misconceived that they have a legal right to continue on the post of Time Keeper in spite of the fact that there is no permanent post of Time Keeper. It was further submitted that in so far as the selection to the post of Time Keeper is concerned it is 100 per cent by direct recruitment and as such the petitioners can have hardly any grievance against their non-continuance to the aforesaid post of Time Keeper and by no stretch of imagination they can claim that they may be regularised on the post of Time Keeper. 4. Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of arguments invited my attention towards the various documents annexed with the writ petitions. 5. A look at Annexure-1 demonstrates that the petitioners were promoted on the post of Helper for a period of one year. Annexure-2 is the document whereby the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, had issued direction to Head Time Keeper on July 29, 1986. 6. A perusal of Annexure-6 goes to show that the petitioners were working as Helper in Time Keeping Section of RSRTC. Similarly in Annexure-7 all the petitioners have been shown as helpers. None of the documents annexed with the writ petitions reveal that the petitioners had ever worked as Time Keeper or Head Time Keeper. The averments made in the writ petitions have been denied by the respondents in its reply. Similarly in Annexure-7 all the petitioners have been shown as helpers. None of the documents annexed with the writ petitions reveal that the petitioners had ever worked as Time Keeper or Head Time Keeper. The averments made in the writ petitions have been denied by the respondents in its reply. Therefore this is a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioners had been working as Time Keeper or Head Time Keeper. The documents annexed with the writ petitions do not support the contentions of the petitioners. Under these circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to any relief sought in the writ petitions. 7. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******