- (1.) 1. By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : "i) To issue a writ, order or direction to hold the C. B. I, inquiry in the matter so that the veracity of the entire selection/recruitment proc ess for the post of constables in Uttaranchal Police held at Pauri may come out. ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus di recting the respondents to ap point the petitioner on the post of Constable. iii) To pass any and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present cir cumstances of the case. iv) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. "
(2.) IT has been pleaded in the writ petition that an advertisement for the ap pointment of Constable in Uttaranchal Police was published. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner having all the qualifications for the ap pointment has submitted his application on 04-02-2006 alongwith all the annexure which are required by the au thorities. The petitioner was physically examined on 22-02-2006 by Mr. Sanjay Rathour and Circle Officer, Pauri. IT was further pleaded that the petitioner had obtained full marks, i. e. , 100 marks in the aforesaid physical examination. IT was also stated that Mr. Sanjay Rathour had accepted this fact that the peti tioner had obtained full marks in the physical examination. The petitioner was ultimately declared unsuccessful as the petitioner had obtained 64 marks in physical examination instead of 100 marks. The petitioner had challenged that Mr. Sanjay Rathour whom he was physically examined has accepted this fact in the affidavit that the petitioner had obtained 100 marks in the physical examination. When the petitioner's se lection was not made, the petitioner had challenged the selection process as well as his rejection by way of awarding less mark in the physical examination. Heard Mrs. Jyotsna-Advocate for the petitioner; Sri N. P. Sah, learned standing counsel for the State/respond ents and perused the record. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the peti tioner was physically examined on 22-02-2006 by Mr. Sanjay Rathour and Cir cle Officer, Pauri. Sanjay Rathour had accepted the fact that the petitioner had obtained full marks in physical exami nation. However, the marksheet reveals that the petitioner had not obtained 100 marks, as such, the petitioner could not compete in the examination and the pe titioner was declared unsuccessfully. Learned counsel for the respondents re futed the contention. At the outset, it has not been pleaded that Sri Sanjay Rathour was a member of the Commit tee by whom the physical test had been conducted. It is well settled position of law that the result of tests on merits cannot be unsuccessfully challenged by the candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the competitive examination and who ultimately found himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in mind that in this petition, this court is not sitting as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidate concerned who had not ap peared before the competitive examina tion nor can the petitioner successfully urge before the court that he was given less marks though his performance was better. It is for the competitive examination committee, which amongst oth ers, consists of experts of the department who assess the performance. The per formance and the measurement made by the Committee cannot be brought in challenged only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appel late court and this court is not sitting as an appellate court over the assessment made by such an expert committee. [see Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jandk and others, (1995) 3 SCC p/486 and Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and others, AIR 2002 SC p/2322].
(3.) IT is further made clear that the Circle Officer who had given the marks cannot be lightly overruled by saying by a Constable that the petitioner had ob tained 100 marks in the physical exami nation. There is no allegation against the Circle Officer, Pauri that he has any grudge against the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discus sion, this writ petition devoids of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.;