IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 1165 of 2009. Date of decision: 20.4.2009 Shanky Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner: Mr. Amar Deep, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner, by means of this petition, has prayed that respondents be directed to grant him an opportunity to appear in the interview and his name may be considered for appointment as constable. He has also prayed that the respondents be directed to produce entire record of the selection. It is clear from the averments made in the petition and the documents attached thereto that the petitioner had applied for being appointed as Constable and had in this regard appeared in the physical test conducted on 6th and 7th December, 2008. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not complete the 800 metre race and left the ground without signing the form. The petitioner alleges that this 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes 2 assertion of the respondent is wrong and he has in fact completed the race. He has further alleged that he stood second in the race. It appears that the entire proceeding of the physical test were video-graphed. The petitioner has applied for copy of the video recording. This application has neither been clearly rejected nor material has been supplied to the petitioner. Before we can decide the main claim in the writ petition, it is imperative to know whether the petitioner had actually completed the race or not. The remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the authorities under the Right to Information Act. He having already applied for the information under the Right to Information Act must pursue his remedy under the same act. This Court at this stage cannot go into contentious issues of fact. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the authority under the Right to Information Act for redressal of his grievances to obtain the copy of the video recording. The authorities shall dispose of the application(s) of the petitioner within four weeks of the production of this order. He can again approach this Court if the said authorities do not supply him the material or if after receiving the copy of the video tape he can prove that he had indeed completed the race. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 20, 2009, ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™