1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.44 of 2011 in WP[MD]NO.13766 OF 2010 G.Ashok : Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Annasalai, Chennai. : Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.13766 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.13766 of 2010: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide 66.25 marks instead of 63.25 marks to the petitioner, by perusing the video recordings recorded at the time of rope climbing physical test relating to the petitioner dated 18.08.2010, consequently directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector, with all service benefits on par with other candidates appointed in Sub Inspector recruitment for the year 2010. For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondent : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT ******** Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.13766 of 2010, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein praying for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide 66.25 marks instead of 63.25 marks to him by perusing the video recordings recorded at the time of rope climbing physical test relating to the appellant dated 18.08.2010 and consequently directing the respondent to appoint the appellant as Sub Inspector of Police with all service benefits on par with other candidates appointed in the recruitment for the year 2010. 2. It is not in dispute that on 18.08.2010, the appellant was subjected to rope climbing physical test and the appellant has not raised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 any objection regarding measurement taken and only after declaration of results on 12.11.2010 and having found that he was not selected, the appellant has chosen to submit a representation on 13.11.2010 to the respondent raising objection regarding measurement of rope climbing. The learned Single Judge, while declining to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, has rightly noted that the appellant's physical endurance was taken by the officer, against whom no mala fide is alleged. The learned Single Judge also relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.A.Nagamani v. Indian Airlines reported in 2009 (5) SCC 515 to the effect that a person, having participated in the selection process and not selected, cannot turn back and question the very process of selection. The scheme of the examination also contemplates that if there is any wrong measurement, aggrieved person can submit objections before the Inspector General of Police. The appellant, having not chosen to make representation before the said authority as per the notification, has no right to file the Writ Petition after knowing that he was not selected. The order of the learned Single Judge is legal and valid. No ground is made out to entertain the Writ Appeal. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. NB Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Annasalai, Chennai. +1 cc to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.1293. JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.44 of 2011 Dated:10.01.2011 2P/3C RPB 27.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/