IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1068 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Balwan Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against order of learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant was a candidate for the post of Sub Inspector advertised on 22.7.2008. Written Test was conducted to the said post, followed by Physical Endurance Test. The appellant was not selected. He challenged the same by filing the writ petition, which was heard alongwith batch of other writ petitions. The Commission made a statement that video had been prepared of the selection process. Accordingly, in pursuance of order of this Court, the petitioner was shown the video. Thereafter, at the time of final hearing, following statement was recorded:- “Counsel for the petitioners, thus would contend that they would be satisfied if permitted to make a LPA No.1068 of 2009 representation in this regard. Let the petitioners make representation to the commission and the commission would be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with law and may in its discretion re-conduct the physical test as one time measure as held out in the communication, copies of which are kept on record of the each writ petition in the form of Photostat.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that he is not willing to appear in the fresh test and is not interested in making representation and in view of the fact that in the earlier part of the order, it was recorded that the counsel had disputed the result shown in the communication, there was contradiction in the later part in recording that the appellant was satisfied if permitted to make representation. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. It is not permissible to dispute the veracity of contents of the order passed by learned Single Judge. The appellant filed a review petition which was also dismissed in September 3, 2009. 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 21, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2