LPA No. 1337 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1337 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 7, 2009 Rajinder Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition challenging the selection of result of recruitment to the post of Sub Inspectors/Inspectors and seeking direction for appointment of the appellant. 2. Case of the appellant is that he was candidate for the post of Sub Inspector as well as Inspector, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.7.2008. He qualified the written tests for both posts and also physical test for the post of Inspector but his name did not find mention in the list of successful candidates. He learnt that he had failed in physical test of Sub Inspector for not meeting chest requirement. He represented that he should be declared pass in physical test of Sub-Inspector also as he has been declared successful in physical test for the post of Inspector and should be called for interview. His request having not been accepted, he filed writ petition. LPA No. 1337 of 2009 2 3. By an interim order, he was allowed provisionally to be called for interview for the post of Sub Inspector. Further interim order was passed directing declaration of result of interview. On 13.8.2009, he was asked by the Staff Selection Commission to appear again for physical test for which he appeared under protest, as according to him, there was no direction to conduct physical test again. After the said test, he was declared unsuccessful on 25.8.2009. 4. Learned Single Judge after examining the result of the physical test came to the conclusion that since the appellant was found unfit in the physical test, there was no reason to interfere. Writ petition was dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents could not conduct physical test again and only interview should have been held. 7. We do not find any merit in the contention. 8. Perusal of affidavit dated 16.10.2009 (page 60 of the paper book) shows that the appellant was not qualified in the physical test and result of interview had not yet been compiled. There is no reason to doubt correctness of result of physical test. If the appellant is not qualified in the physical test, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 7, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE LPA No. 1337 of 2009 3