Judgment :- (M. Chockalingam, J.) These two writ petitions are filed challenging the order made in O.A.Nos.480 and 481 of 2008 whereby the request of the petitioners was denied. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 3. The petitioners were served with the letter of appointment on 1.7.2008 by the 3rd respondent appointing them as the Sales Attendants in the pay scale of Rs.2650 – 4000. The claim of the petitioners is that they were entitled to be appointed as Store Keepers in the pay scale of Rs.4000 – 6000. What was all contended before the Tribunal and equally here also is that they were originally appointed as Store keepers and they were working as such all along the period. Hence, they were to be appointed only as Store keepers and not as Sales Attendants. Before the Tribunal and equally here also they relied on three documents. The Tribunal after hearing the contentions putforth by the respondents and on scrutiny of the documents available, took the view that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief asked for and dismissed the applications. Aggrieved over the same, the writ petitions have arisen before this Court. 4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the writ petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have worked as Store Keepers for decades since they were originally appointed as Store keepers. There was an interview in the year 1999 calling for appointment of Store Keepers and the petitioners have appeared before the Committee. Now, the appointment was issued on 1.7.2008 appointing them as Sales Attendants. A certificate has also been given, as found in page No.2 of the typed set, by the competent authority that the petitioners are working in the Unit run canteen. Learned counsel would further submit that a pass has also been issued to both the petitioners. All would clearly indicate that they are working as Store Keepers. Hence, the order of appointment as Sales Attendants was contrary to the state of affairs and they should have been appointed only as Store Keepers and not as Sales Attendants. 5. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court. 6. 5. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court. 6. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioners is that they should have been appointed as Store Keepers instead of Sales Attendants. It is not in controversy that they have been working in the canteen. The first contention putfurth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were appointed as Store keepers in the canteen, cannot be accepted, since no acceptable material is available before the Court. The first document relied upon by them is only a certificate speaking that their work was sincere. So far as the second document was concerned, it was mentioned that the post was only a temporary one. So far as the other document is concerned, it was not an order of appointment. All would clearly indicate that they were working in the canteen and now, the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were working as Store keepers, on appointment, cannot be countenanced. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court to the document which would indicate that they were called for the interview in the year 1999 for Store keepers, but, what was actually the result of the said interview, remains unknown. Had the petitioners been really appointed as Store Keepers pursuant to the interview, there could not be any impediment for them in filing those documents. Thus, it would clearly indicative of the fact that they were not selected in the interview. Now, as on today, they have got the appointment order as Sales Attendants pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court and in the absence of any order of appointment or to show that they were working as Store Keepers as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it cannot be stated that they are entitled for appointment as Store Keepers. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.