JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. The petitioners had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna by filing O.A. No. 8 of 2012 seeking following reliefs: “(i) To quash the result published on 11.10.2011 (Annexure-8), for the typing test held on 17.11.2011, passed by DRM (P), EC Railway, Samastipur. (ii) To quash the order dated 23.12.2011, passed by the DRM (P), EC Railway, Samastipur (Annexure-11). (iii) The applicants should be allowed to continue on their promotional post of Junior Clerk. (iv) Alternatively, re-typing test or one more chance for typing test may be given to the applicants in fair and impartial manner. (v) Any other relief or reliefs which the applicant is found entitled, to be passed.” 2. The above relief was prayed for in the background that the petitioners were granted promotion on Group "C" post under a fixed quota of the vacancies, which were available for promotion from 4th grade employees. The promotion, which was provisional, was granted after conduct of written test held on 14.06.2008, but all of them were required to pass the typing test within two years of their grant of promotion. Since they failed to pass the typing test even in the third test, which was held on 07.10.2011, the provisional promotion order, which was issued in their favour was withdrawn and the litigation started thereafter before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. Various kinds of submissions were made before the Tribunal to wriggle out of the situation, like exemption being claimed from going through the typing test because they all are well past 45 years of age, for that nothing adverse against them as such was found for the period they had worked on the promoted post, that a free and fair examination was not conducted and they are fortified in this view after the Railway Authorities refused to provide the copies of their answer-sheet under Right to Information because they perceive that they have qualified in the typing test etc. etc. 4. The Railways filed their W.S. and they took a stand that the promotion which these petitioners are claiming as a matter of right, is based on a set of rules and the requirement of the rules have to be fulfilled. etc. 4. The Railways filed their W.S. and they took a stand that the promotion which these petitioners are claiming as a matter of right, is based on a set of rules and the requirement of the rules have to be fulfilled. These petitioners had been granted opportunity to pass the typing test three times over between 2009 and 2011 and they have failed on every occasion, therefore, the provisional promotion, which was granted to them, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. The Tribunal did not grant any relief to these petitioners. The requirement of the typing test, the Court is informed, is also not rigorous because minimum requirement of Hindi typing is only 25 words a minute and for English 30 words a minute. It is a case of sheer incompetence on the part of the petitioners to qualify the typing test and the Railways have given them enough leeway by granting them three opportunity. If they have failed each and every time, the expectation of these petitioners that they will be allowed to continue on the post since they are inching their age of superannuation, is a misplaced expectation. Promotion on a higher post is given with certain higher responsibility and with certain skill. The skill expected from these petitioners is not too rigorous which cannot be achieved. In fact, the Court is of the opinion that any indulgence shown to these petitioners by interfering with the order of the Tribunal will only lower the standards as well as the efficiency of service and will become a precedent for other laggard employees. 6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners thereafter brings example of one Manisha Kumari to show that the Railways are trying to practise discrimination. She too has not passed the typing test, but she has not been reverted and she is going to be given yet another opportunity. 7. A closer examination of facts available on record indicates that Manisha Kumari has failed once. She did not appear in the second examination whatever be the reason and when third examination was held, she was given opportunity and she failed even in that examination. Net effect is that she had sat in two examinations for the typing test and she had failed. She did not appear in the second examination whatever be the reason and when third examination was held, she was given opportunity and she failed even in that examination. Net effect is that she had sat in two examinations for the typing test and she had failed. Railways are now trying to give her third opportunity, which is not more than three opportunities, which these petitioners have already availed of. 8. Even otherwise, the issue of Manisha Kumari was not before the Tribunal. The decision to offer her yet another opportunity should not be tested in this writ. Even opportunity to Manisha Kumari cannot be made the reason for providing an opportunity to these petitioners 4th time over, to clear the typing test now. 9. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed. The Tribunals order and decision does not suffer from any vice, which is required to be corrected.