Judgment :- (Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order of the learned single Judge dated 11.03.2003 made in W.P.No.3484 of 1997. W.P.No.3484 of 1997: This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Accident Branch Traffic Investigator in the first respondent Corporation.) D. Murugesan, J. The unsuccessful appellants in the writ petition have approached this Court by way of writ appeal on the ground that they were deputed for training at Traffic Training center, Anna Nagar for a period of one year and they being Conductors, should be regularized in the post of Accident Branch Traffic Investigator. Though the request for such regularisation was made, the same was not considered. Hence, they sought for a direction in the writ petition, which was rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground that there is no such post in the Service Rules of the respondent-Corporation. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents. 3. First of all, it must be established that for issuing Writ of Mandamus, there is a statutory obligation cast upon the Corporation to appoint the appellants as Accident Branch Traffic Investigator as per the Rules and corresponding failure on the part of the Corporation to discharge such obligation. It is the categorical stand of the respondents-Corporation that there is no such post as Accident Branch Traffic Investigator. In the absence of such post, the issuance of direction, that too in the nature of mandamus, for regularisation of service in a post which is no more in existence as per the Rules, cannot be ordered. 4. In so far as the contention of the appellants viz., that they are trained in the field and consequently, are entitled to regularisation, it must be noted that the petitioners being Conductors are entitled to be promoted to the post of Checking Inspectors as per the Rules and their training experience can very well be utilized in such promoted post. Merely because training was undergone by the appellants, the same cannot be a ground for regularisation of the appellants in the post which is not in existence. Hence, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Merely because training was undergone by the appellants, the same cannot be a ground for regularisation of the appellants in the post which is not in existence. Hence, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.2520 of 2003 is also dismissed.