JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard Shri M. P. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Clerk-cum Typist under the Physically handicapped category. The contention is that he cleared the first and 2nd stage examinations and was called for typing test that was scheduled to be held on 19th April, 2014. 3. The call letter for the typing test was despatched on 19th March, 2014 which is a month earlier to the date of typing test. The petitioner received the said call letter and the conditions mentioned in the call letter are extracted hereinbelow: "You are therefore advised to appear for Typing Test on the date and venue mentioned below." 4. Clause 3 of the said instructions categorically states that the date of the typing test will not be altered in any circumstances. The other conditions for typing test are also provided therein. Clause 9 of the said call letter reads as under:- "Physically Handicapped candidate who is unable to type should submit a Medical Certificate in this regard issued from Medical Board attached to the Special Employment Exchange or by Civil Surgeon where such Board does not exist." 5. Under the aforesaid clause it is evident that the candidate has to submit a medical certificate issued from the Medical Board attached to the Special Employment Exchange or by Civil Surgeon where no such Board exists to the effect that he is unable to undertake the typing test. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the extent of physical handicap of the petitioner was established keeping in view the handicap certificate issued to him way back on 22nd May, 1996 that had already been tendered along with the application form. Learned counsel submits that there was no doubt about the status of physical handicap of the petitioner, but on the said date the petitioner did not tender the requisite certificate as per clause 9 which the petitioner admittedly obtained on 21st April, 2014. Shri Dixit submits that this could have been condoned by the respondents inasmuch as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in the submission of such a medical certificate that was tendered to the petitioner after the date of the typing test. Shri Dixit submits that this could have been condoned by the respondents inasmuch as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in the submission of such a medical certificate that was tendered to the petitioner after the date of the typing test. He therefore submits that the Tribunal has erroneously arrived at a wrong finding and has dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner. 7. We have considered the submissions raised and we have also heard the learned counsel for the Railways. The facts are not disputed. The only question is as to whether the petitioner could have succeeded in getting his status treated to be that of a physically handicapped person for being exempted from the typing test. 8. In our considered opinion, even if the petitioner had a physically handicapped certificate, he was required to tender a further certificate that he was unable to type. This certificate was admittedly obtained by the petitioner on 21st of April, 2014 which is two days after the date of the typing test. The power to condone or to accept such a certificate even if after the typing test is held could not be relaxed in the absence of any such indication given in the call letter which categorically recites that the date of typing test will not be altered in any circumstance. 9. Consequently, we cannot read into the said call letter a power of relaxation for submission of a such a certificate after the date of typing test. 10. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.