JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to comply their own order dated 05.12.1997 by providing three years service in the Company because petitioner has already completed the Training and obtained Nursing Grade-"A" and Midwifery Certificate. 2. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1997, the respondents-BCCL invited application for the training of General Nursing & Midwifery from the eligible candidates. The petitioner being eligible applied and after going through the selection process, was selected for training. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Clause 10 of the Selection letter, after completion of training, the candidates have to serve the company for three years provided there is vacancy. It has further been submitted that after completion of training, the petitioner approached several times showing her willingness to serve the company and waited for future vacancy and their response, but she was not called for to serve in the Company. In the meantime, the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit, hence she has no other hope other than the present one. On the strength of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that direction may be issued upon the respondents to call her to join the respondents-Company. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents referring to Clause 10 of the terms and conditions for training programme submitted that serving of the company is subject to availability of vacancy and further there is explicit statement that one cannot claim for absorption in the company on completion of training period. It has further been submitted that after completion of training by the petitioner vacancy did not arise and when the vacancy arose in the year 2015, the respondents-company invited application but by that time the petitioner crossed the upper age limit. Furthermore, mere doing training with the respondent-company would not ipso facto gives any right to the petitioner to claim employment. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. Furthermore, mere doing training with the respondent-company would not ipso facto gives any right to the petitioner to claim employment. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to quote, relevant Clause 10 of the ''terms and conditions'' of training in General Nursing & Midwifery: "10.After completion of training and obtaining Nursing Grade - ''A'' and Midwifery certificates you will have to serve the Company for 3 (three) years provided there is vacancy and provided you are found suitable for the job. However, you cannot claim for absorption in the Company on completion of training period." 6. From plain reading of Clause 10, it appears that after completion of training, the candidate has to serve for three years with the respondents-company subject to availability of vacancy and suitability of the candidate. The other part of the clause in unequivocal terms speaks that serving with the company for the aforesaid period will not ipso facto confer any right for absorption. In the case at hand, very specific stand has been taken by the respondents-Comapny that since there was no vacancy at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not offered to serve in the company and when the vacancy arose in the year 2015, by that time the petitioner became unsuitable because she crossed upper age limit. From the pleadings available on record, in particular second part of Clause, which says that such service will not confer any right for absorption, the petitioner ought not to have waited for a long time to get employment which is otherwise not secured in view of averment made in the clause. Even otherwise also, it is well settled law that mere completion of training from an institution does not give indefeasible right to claim employment. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.