ORDER Dube, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order by which the Petitioner has been absorbed in an alternative appointment and not given a further opportunity to qualify in a refresher course. The matter arises thus: The Petitioner was appointed as a Guard in the erstwhile State of Gwalior, in Gwalior State Railway service. Consequent on taking over the State Railway by the Central Government, he was absorbed as a guard in Category 'C' under the Indian Government services. The Petitioner opted for the rules of the Indian (Government) Railways Rules and conditions of service. There is no dispute that he was governed by the Indian (Government) Railway Rules as were in force at the relevant time. The Petitioner was promoted in category 'B' of the Guards. In course of time he crossed the efficiency bar and was confirmed as a guard in category 'B'. Admittedly the conditions of service of the railway employees are regulated by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Under Rule 2004 of the Railway Fundamental Rules (Service Conditions, Pay and Deputation), Chapter 20 of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, the whole time of a railway servant is to be at the disposal of the Government. The relevant rule runs as under: Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided the whole time of a railway servant is at the disposal of Government, and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim for additional remuneration whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from general revenues from a local fund or from the funds of a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government. Under Rule 146, [Chapter I (General) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I], it was open to the President to transfer a railway servant to any other department of the Railways, or railway establishment, including a project in or out of India. In regard to a non-gazetted railway servant, the power of the President under this rule in respect of transfer within India could be exercised by an Agent or by a lower authority to whom the Agent may re-delegate his powers. For maintaining a general level of efficiency in work, the staff engaged in the train passing duties/train operations, is required to pass a periodical refresher course. For maintaining a general level of efficiency in work, the staff engaged in the train passing duties/train operations, is required to pass a periodical refresher course. Rule 152-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, was framed with this end in view and was brought in force with effect from 22-8-1966. The rule reads as under: 152-A. Periodical refresher courses for staff connected with train passing and train operation - Station Masters, Assistant Station Masters, Switchmen, Cabinmen, Guards and Drivers who are employed in train passing duties/train operation, shall be required to pass the appropriate examination in these subjects at the end of the periodical refresher course. Failure to pass the said examination shall be deemed to be a good and sufficient reason for taking action under the disciplinary rules for the time being applicable to such staff. The guards and drivers, under the aforesaid rule, are required to pass appropriate examination at the end of the periodical refresher courses, and a failure to pass the examination is deemed a dereliction entailing departmental action. Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, authorised the Railway Board to frame rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control. Exercising powers under Rule 157 the Railway Board issued Circulars from time to time regulating the mode and the manner in which the guards and drivers were required to undergo refresher courses and qualify themselves at the end of such courses. The Petitioner was sent for a refresher course held at the Zonal Training School, Bhusaval on the following dates: (1) Course No. 72, from 10-9-1965 to 9-10 1965. (2) Course No 84, from 8 8 1966 to 7-9 1966. (3) Course No. 100, from 22-1-1968 to 21-2 1968. He failed in all the three attempts to qualify in the Guards Refresher Course. By Board's Circular letter No. E (Trg) 61 TRI/46 dated 22-8-1966, it was incumbent on the staff to qualify in the refresher course in the safe working of trains at the end of such course in the Zonal Training School. If he failed to qualify in the Refresher Course, he was required to repeat the same immediately or after a short period. If he failed to qualify in the Refresher Course, he was required to repeat the same immediately or after a short period. The staff, thus failing to qualify was granted leave as might be due to him to cover the intervening period or alternatively his services were utilised in another post as was permissible as laid down under the Railway Board's previous letter No. E-55 AE-8-304 (D. S. A.) dated 7 8-1968 It was further provided that if the staff failed for the second time, disciplinary action would be taken against him terminating his lien, and he could be employed in another post, either equal in rank or even in a lower grade, which might not involve train passing /operation duties. The Petitioner could have been transferred to an alternative job not involving train passing/operation duties when he failed to qualify in the refresher course No. 84. The Railway Board by another letter No. E (Trg) 1-67-TRI/96 dated 4-9-1967, directed that the staff engaged in train passing/ operation duties, failing in the second attempt in the refresher course be finally absorbed in the alternative category not involving train passing/operation duties. However, by this letter, such a person could further take advantage of the refresher course at an interval of six months, but the repeat course was to be taken by availing of his own leave. Under this letter, the Petitioner had to be absorbed in the alternative category as he no longer remained eligible for train passing/operation duties. The Petitioner, after he failed for the second time, therefore, did not remain eligible to perform the duties of a guard till he passed the refresher course. By a third Circular letter No. E (TRG)-167-TRI/69 dated 8-10-1968, the Railway Board directed that the persons absorbed in the alternative categories consequent on their failing in the second chance of the periodical refresher course, could be allowed to undertake further refresher course at an interval of minimum six months by availing of their own leave. By a third Circular letter No. E (TRG)-167-TRI/69 dated 8-10-1968, the Railway Board directed that the persons absorbed in the alternative categories consequent on their failing in the second chance of the periodical refresher course, could be allowed to undertake further refresher course at an interval of minimum six months by availing of their own leave. The extract from this letter is reproduced below, as by this letter, it was finally directed that a person failing in the second chance could only be given one more opportunity for appearing in the refresher course: In the interest of safety, they (Board) have decided that the Railway employees in the categories referred to above who failed in the second chance and absorbed in alternative categories should be allowed to undertake only one chance for appearing in the refresher course after availing of their own leave. It is also clarified that old cases already dealt with under previous orders need to be reopened. The Petitioner was placed in the alternative job of Assistant Head Number-taker by an order dated 17-2-1969 (Annexure 3) and his pay was fixed in the scale Rs. 150-240. He was fixed at the maximum salary of the grade i. e., at Rs. 240. As the Petitioner had already been given 3 opportunities to qualify himself in the refresher course, his request for a further opportunity was rejected. Against this rejection of his request to be allowed to appear in the refresher course, once again, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Jhansi, which was rejected by the order dated 11-8 1969. The correctness of these orders is now disputed. Two points have been raised before us. It is contended that the transfer of the Petitioner to the statutory duties involved reduction in rank, and therefore, violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution, and secondly, that the Petitioner was entitled to one more opportunity to qualify himself in the refresher course. Under Rule 152-A, Guards and Drivers, employed in train passing/ operation duties were required to pass appropriate examinations in some subjects pertaining to train passing operations at the end of the periodical refresher course. It was a condition of service which enjoined on him to maintain a standard of technical skill and knowledge for the purposes of his duties. Under Rule 152-A, Guards and Drivers, employed in train passing/ operation duties were required to pass appropriate examinations in some subjects pertaining to train passing operations at the end of the periodical refresher course. It was a condition of service which enjoined on him to maintain a standard of technical skill and knowledge for the purposes of his duties. A failure to qualify in the refresher course necessarily meant that he no longer remained eligible to perform the train passing/operation duties. The Board had a right to his services under Rule 2004 of the Railway Fundamental Rules (corresponding to Fundamental Rule 11) without a claim for any additional remuneration, and it was open to the authorities to transfer him to any other suitable job carrying the same pay scale. The question is, whether such a transfer to statutory duties would amount to "reduction in rank". The Petitioner, while serving as guard at the time of his appointment on being appointed to the alternative job of Assistant Head Number-taker was receiving a salary of Rs. 219 per month. After his absorption in the alternative job as Assistant Head-Number taker, he was placed in the same scale of pay and his pay was fixed at the maximum of the grade, i. e., Rs. 240. The enhancement of his pay, it was contended, was made to compensate him for the loss in his mileage allowance which he used to receive while serving as a guard. It could not be said that the Petitioner's appointment in the alternative post was visited with evil consequences. There was no forfeiture of any benefit already acquired by the Petitioner. The mileage allowance which a guard was entitled to get was because of the performance of arduous duties attached to that post. In the instant case, the Petitioner had ceased to have a right to perform the duties of a guard after he failed three times in the refresher course. The mileage allowance could be drawn only by a person doing a particular type of job and which was meant to compensate him for the performance of duties of onerous and arduous nature. It was pointed out that Rule 1913 (2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code provides that the running allowance payable to the running staff is considered at the time of fixing the retirement benefits. It was pointed out that Rule 1913 (2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code provides that the running allowance payable to the running staff is considered at the time of fixing the retirement benefits. The loss of mileage allowance was bound to adversely affect his pension and retirement benefits and would, therefore, amount to "reduction in rank". In this context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in M. Narasimhachar v. The State of Mysore AIR 1960 SC 247 , have made it clear that Article 311(2) does not deal with the question of pension. Any loss in pension unless there was a rule to the contrary, could not be said to be 'reduction in rank'. Reduction in rank envisaged under Article 311 involves loss of benefits already earned arising from a post. It does not envisage loss in retirement benefits and as such, the Petitioner could not be said to have been visited with evil consequences even if it is correct that the mileage allowance was reckoned while computing emoluments for giving the retirement benefits. The expression "rank" in Article 311(2) has reference to a person's classification It has not been shown that the present status of the Petitioner was in any manner lower than that of a guard, and as there has been no loss in his substantive pay, he could not be said to have suffered "reduction in rank". This contention, in our view, must fail. Lastly it is urged that the order refusing the Petitioner to allow him one more chance to qualify at the refresher course was in breach of the Board's Circulars. It is clear from the three letters issued by the Railway Board, that a person involved in train passing/operation duties, must qualify at the refresher course, otherwise he ceases to be eligible to continue as a guard. It is for the Railway Board to fix the number of opportunities to be given to a person failing at the end of such courses There is no doubt that a person who has not kept up to the required efficiency could not be continued in the post involving train passing /operation duties, as it would be against public safety. The Railway Board was competent to take disciplinary action and terminate the lien of the Petitioner, for having failed in the refresher course, in spite of three opportunities. The Railway Board was competent to take disciplinary action and terminate the lien of the Petitioner, for having failed in the refresher course, in spite of three opportunities. It is clear from the third letter of the Railway Board that such a person could be given one last chance after he had failed twice. The Petitioner having been already given three chances, the Railway Board was justified in refusing to allow him any further opportunities The Petitioner could be placed in the alternative job after he had failed to qualify for the first time in accordance with the letter dated 22-8-1966 (Annexure 'C'). His retention on the post of guard after the first failure, due to administrative exigencies, did not amount to condonation of his disqualifications such as would give rise to a right not to be treated as a failure candidate. No grievance can be made by him that he was not absorbed in the alternative job earlier. It could not be claimed by the Petitioner, as of right, that in terms of the third letter of the Railway Board, he was required to be absorbed in an alternative job before he was deprived of his last chance for qualifying himself in the refresher course. Merely because he had not been absorbed in the alternative job earlier, the Petitioner did not get a right to claim a further opportunity for appearing at the refresher course. The Railway Board was quite justified in refusing him any further opportunity after he had failed thrice. In our view, this ground has no substance. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, there shall be no orders as to costs. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioner. Petition dismissed