CWP(T) No.3813/2008. 25.2.2009. Present: Mr.Ajay Sharma, counsel for the Petitioner. Mr.R.K.Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for the Respondents No.1,2 and 4. Mr.D.K.Khanna, counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above, it is submitted that suitable directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to: i) Take the screening test of the applicant by giving him special chance forthwith without any further delay, or in the alternative, respondents may very kindly be directed to treat the applicant has having qualified the said screening test with all consequential benefits. ii) Respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the records. iii) Special cost as provided under section 35A of CPC may very kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.” For the post of T.G.T.(Medical) the petitioner was issued a letter asking him to appear in the test on 6th October, 1996. The error was noticed in terms of letter dated 29th September, 1996 (Annexure:A-2). The test was to be held on 29th September, 1996. As per the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.3-H.P.Public Service Commission, the petitioner did not appear in the said test. But, however, as per the averments made by the petitioner he approached the Superintendent-respondent No.4 on 29th September, 1996 and requested him to allow the petitioner to appear in the test which was not done so. In the reply filed by respondent No.4 this fact is seriously disputed. Respondent No.4 has categorically stated that at no point of time the petitioner ever approached him. It is to be noticed that respondent No.4 who had been conducting the test is a senior Lecturer working in the Government College, Dharamshala. He had no reason not to allow the petitioner to participate in the test. Be that as it may be these are the disputed facts which cannot be agitated in the present petition. In the facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol),J. February 25, 2009(R)