Judgment 1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 1 September, 1998 (Annexure-6 to the petition). There were several claimants before the CAT and these were claims registered as O.A. No. 30/92 and O.A. No. 437 of 1992. The petitioners belong to the claim registered as O.A. No. 437/92. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the respondent Union of India. 3. The issue before the CAT was that Fireman-II, which was the substantive grade of the claimants, were seeking promotion to the post of Fireman-I. If the petitioners were qualified, there would have been no occasion to deny the relief to them. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners as Fireman-ll did discharge duties on an adhoc posting as Fireman-I for a short duration. But the aspect, which cannot be ignored is that under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-1 paragraph-136 (Revised Edition 1989) the post of Fireman-I is to be filled cent percent by promotion of Fireman-ll in scale of Rs. 825-1200/- by a process of selection. Unfortunately, the petitioners did participate in the process of selection, which includes a written test as well as training. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and failed and, thus, could not qualify for being considered as Fireman-I. The fact that the petitioners have been functioning as Fireman-I on ad-hoc basis, ultimately saw them reverted to the post of Fireman-11. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that since they had worked for sufficient number of period as Fireman-I they should be deemed to have qualified by experience to hold the post of Fireman-I. The petitioners also contend that it was not necessary for them to qualify in the written test nor they could have been reverted though they could not qualify in the selection process including the written test. If a selection process has been outlined and in the present case it has been, it would be an illegality to avoid the selection process and continue the petitioners as Fireman-I fully conscious of the aspect that they had failed in the examination. 5. If reliance has been placed that some others were continuing as Fireman-I by an order of 16 June, 1993, this aspect has been noticed by the CAT in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. 5. If reliance has been placed that some others were continuing as Fireman-I by an order of 16 June, 1993, this aspect has been noticed by the CAT in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. This situation has been explained that the persons named in the establishment order of 16 June, 1993 hold the post as a consequence of cadre restructuring. Further the Tribunal also noticed that the fact that persons like the petitioners had been promoted to function as Fireman-I was a circumstance whe qualified persons were not available an there is no question of giving persons liki the petitioners indulgence to hold the pos, of Fireman-I as of right when otherwise they are not qualified. 6. In the circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error on the claim petition by passing its order dated 1 September, 1998. 7. The petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.