JUDGMENT : K. M. Joseph, J. 1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. He secured appointment as Police Constable in the year 2006. On 12.02.2014, advertisement was issued for the purpose of initiating examination process for selection of Ranker Sub Inspector, Civil Police. The appellant applied pursuant to the same. The selection process contemplated holding of physical ability test and written examination. 300 marks were earmarked for written examination, which was followed by successful participation in the physical ability test. The physical ability test consisted of completing 5 kms. race in 30 minutes qua the male candidates. Appellant secured 259 marks out of 300 marks in the written examination. He participated in the physical ability test. He was declared successful. Selection proceeded to the next stage where ACR was valued in terms of procedure contemplated under the advertisement. He secured 307 marks out of 400 marks. He was included in the list of successful candidates. Appropriate proceedings pursuant to the same were commenced. While so it appears that a complaint was received that appellant along with another had actually not successfully run the race under the physical ability test, as required and yet appellant was declared successful. On the basis of the same, preliminary inquiry was conducted. In the preliminary inquiry, video coverage of the physical ability test conducted on 28.09.2015, in which appellant had participated, was examined. It would appear that Deputy Commandant, who was entrusted with the task of preliminary inquiry, reported that appellant was unsuccessful during the race and yet his name was included in the list of successful candidates. By communication dated 09.12.2015 produced as Annexure No. 7 to the Appeal, the Commandant wrote to the Inspector General of Police, PAC, who was also the Chairman of Sub Inspector Ranker Examination, about this development and indicated in the letter that inquiry was being conducted by Deputy Commandant Smt. Sarita Dobhal to make the position clear. The said communication ended with the request that appellant may be kept in the category of unsuccessful candidates by removing his name from the list of successful candidates. Writ petition was filed on 18.01.2016. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows: “(i). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents include the name of the petitioner in the final selection list of SI Rankers 2015. (ii). Writ petition was filed on 18.01.2016. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows: “(i). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents include the name of the petitioner in the final selection list of SI Rankers 2015. (ii). To issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector Ranker training 2015.” 2. Pleadings were exchanged. Learned Single Judge took the view that Assistant In-charge of starting/finishing point Dalnayak Sri Samarveer Singh Rawat reported that appellant had not reached at the finishing point within the prescribed time. It is further noticed by learned Single Judge that video coverage of the race was shown to the appellant but he could not identify himself at the finishing point of the race. Thereafter, further inquiry was conducted against the appellant and FIR was registered against him under Section 420, 417 IPC. Thereafter, with the following observations learned Singled Judge dismissed the writ petition: “3. Petitioner was required to complete the race of 5 Kilometer within 30 minutes. It is not the case of the petitioner that videography of the starting point and finishing point is defective. Petitioner was required to fulfill the condition as enumerated in the advertisement dated 12.02.2014. The name of the petitioner was wrongly included in the selection list. There is a report of Assistant In-charge of Starting/finishing point Dalnayak Sri Samarveer Singh Rawat that petitioner has not reached at the finishing point. Section 71 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 and instructions issued on 23.06.2010 would be applicable if the complaint is made against the police officer/official while discharging his official duties. In the present case, merely, petitioner has participated in the selection process.” 3. We heard Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Anup Verma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. C.S. Rawat, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 4. Mr. C. D. Bahuguna, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant would point out that appellant had secured 307 marks out of 400 marks. He was declared successful in the physical ability test. Evaluating the success in the physical ability test, a token was given to him by the official concerned. Token was produced before another officer. Concerned officer entered his name and obtained his signature. Documents in this regard are also undoubtedly made available. He was declared successful in the physical ability test. Evaluating the success in the physical ability test, a token was given to him by the official concerned. Token was produced before another officer. Concerned officer entered his name and obtained his signature. Documents in this regard are also undoubtedly made available. 5. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that Commandant on receipt of the complaint ordered an inquiry to be conducted by Deputy Commandant. He also referred us to communication dated 09.12.2015, which we have already referred to. He also took us to report of the Deputy Commandant dated 30.12.2015. It would appear that though this is being described as preliminary inquiry report but this is certainly not that preliminary report, which is referred in communication dated 09.12.2015, as it is of even date. There is no dispute that 18 witnesses were examined. Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant would emphasize that apart from one witness namely the Group Leader none other witnesses had spoken against the appellant. On the other hand, he would seek support from statements of some of the witnesses. Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant would point out that not only the name of appellant is excluded from the list of successful candidates but also an FIR is lodged against him and this has got serious consequences, as his career itself is at stake. 6. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the statement of witnesses on which appellant has placed reliance. “Smt. Hema Pandey A.S.I. (M), 40th Battalion, PAC, Haridwar gave statement that I am posted in 40th Battalion on the post of A.S.I. (M). On 28.09.2015 race for Rankers Sub Inspector, Civil Police was held in this Battalion and for getting the race successfully conducted, my duty was at the seat near starting/finishing point for obtaining signature. I got signatures of Tolly no. 3 & 6. Group leader, Sri Samarveer Singh, the Assistant In-charge, was posted at starting/finishing point and was also present at I-card distributor/token distribution/mike duty and stop watch. At this point, besides me, other 6 officers/employees and about 8-10 recruit constables were also posted. At the finishing point, signature of failed candidates were obtained by me and Shri Samarveer Singh, Group leader and then after taking token, signature of the candidate was taken. The candidate who showed/deposited token, his signature was obtained. At this point, besides me, other 6 officers/employees and about 8-10 recruit constables were also posted. At the finishing point, signature of failed candidates were obtained by me and Shri Samarveer Singh, Group leader and then after taking token, signature of the candidate was taken. The candidate who showed/deposited token, his signature was obtained. The candidate who showed/deposited token, against his name (PASS) was written and signature of the candidate was obtained. The candidate who was failed, against his name (FAIL) was written and the signature of the candidate was obtained. Question- Constable 627 Hemraj who was failed in the race, now he was kept in the category of Pass? Answer- I, do not know Hemraj personally, and don’t know how token was obtained by him and how/where from he was included in the Tolly of ‘pass’ candidates. Whosoever gave token he was kept in the category of ‘Pass’. Sri Akhilesh Kumar, RI, ATC, Haridwar gave statements that I am employed in ATC. The race of Rankers Sub Inspector Civil Police was scheduled to be held on 28.09.2015 at 40th Battalion. For its successful completion, my duty was at finishing point for making arrangement. All were being persuaded by me, by announcement on mike, for making arrangement. For successful completion of the race, all necessary works were done. All employees informed by mike to remain alert on their duty as also about start of the race and for reaching at the finishing point. Question - Whether during the race, allegations were being made at the finishing point, for unfairly declaring any one pass/fail? Answer - At the finishing point, ‘stop watch’ was being operated by Superintendent of Police Sri Ashok Bhatt, on completion of race within the prescribed limit, candidate would be manually stopped, barricade would also be placed there, then nobody could be able to enter the finishing point, so there was no possibility of leveling allegations. Question - Whether any failed candidate could reach the group of successful candidates from any other way except the finishing point? Answer – Failed candidates would be made to sit other side, under a tree, outside the ground. On all other ways, employees were deputed on duty so that any failed candidate could not enter the ground. Question - Whether any failed candidate could reach the group of successful candidates from any other way except the finishing point? Answer – Failed candidates would be made to sit other side, under a tree, outside the ground. On all other ways, employees were deputed on duty so that any failed candidate could not enter the ground. At the same time, it was also being informed by me to all that whosoever thinks him unwell, he can take service of ambulance and such service were taken too. Constable Commando Ashok Kumar Haridwar gave statements that I am employed in A.T.S. team Haridwar. On 28.09.2015 race of Ranker Sub Inspector Civil Police was held in this Battalion. For successful completion of this race, my duty was at finishing point for a cross check. Alongwith me Constable Commando Ajay Mehra, A.T.S. Team was also on duty. We were given list of each Tolly, in which there were number from 01 to 300. We were directed that as many as candidate would be ‘pass’ at the finishing point, we had to make tick on such numbers and thereafter to compare it with the token. We made tick in the list of each Tolly and all the lists were given to P.C. Shri Sandeep, Sir. Question- Whether tick list had been compared by you with the token? Answer- No, till we check a list, another Tolly of the race would reach the finishing point, and this all would continue. There was another team to take signature of the ‘pass’ candidates, where enough time was being spent in taking signatures of the candidates. Therefore, token could not be compared. Head Constable Shri Ram Chandra Nautiyal. At present posted at R.T.C. 40th Battalion P.A.C. Haridwar, gave statement that I am employed in this Battalion. Race of Rankers Sub Inspector Civil Police was held on 28.09.2015 at this Battalion. For successful completion of this race my duty was at the finishing point for making arrangement. I was directed that no candidate may be permitted to come inside the finishing point on completion of the prescribed time of the race. The ‘pass’ candidates were given entry from finishing point to A.T.C. ground and the failed candidates were made to sit under the tree outside the ground. After completion of the race no failed candidate was permitted to enter the finishing point. The ‘pass’ candidates were given entry from finishing point to A.T.C. ground and the failed candidates were made to sit under the tree outside the ground. After completion of the race no failed candidate was permitted to enter the finishing point. Sub Inspector (V.S.) Shri Sohan Lal Muyal, 40th Battalion P.A.C., Haridwar gave statements that I have been performing the job of BHM in 40th Battalion. Race of Ranker Sub Inspector Civil Police was held in this Battalion on 28.09.2015. For successful completion of the race my duty was at the finishing point for making arrangement. I was directed to ensure that on completion of race at the finishing point within prescribed time no candidate may be permitted to come inside. The ‘pass’ candidates were given entry from finishing point to A.T.C. ground and the failed candidates were made to sit under the trees outside the ground. On completion of prescribed time of race, no failed candidate was permitted to come inside the finishing point. Head Constable Soniya Chaudhary, Group ‘M’, 40th Battalion P.A.C., Haridwar gave statements that I am employed in 40th Battalion, Haridwar. On 28.09.2015 race of Ranker Sub Inspector Civil Police was held in the 40th Battalion. For successful completion of the race, my duty was at starting/finishing point as play card holder. In addition to that, I also performed that job which was given to me by Assistant In-charge of the team.” 7. Learned Sr. Advocate would also point out with reference to Annexure No. 1 to the Special Appeal that selection procedure contemplates ousting of candidates at various stages, upon they being found unsuccessful. In the matter of physical ability test, the moment candidate is found to be unsuccessful under the selection procedure, the candidate is to be ousted. Not having ousted the appellant at the stage of physical ability test, it is not legal on the part of the Authorities to oust the appellant, in the manner it is done. It is also contended that in Tolly No. 3, as many as 7 candidates, who are not seen at the finishing line in the video supplied to the appellant obtained under the Right to Information Act, have been selected and therefore, this is pressed upon us to emphasize that reliance placed on the video may not be justifiable in the case of appellant. Learned Sr. Learned Sr. Advocate has also produced certain photographs in an attempt to bring the video under a cloud and to contend that appellant may not be ousted at this stage and left to face consequences merely on the basis of footage in a video. 8. Per contra, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand would point out that in the writ petition, there is no challenge to the report. He would further point out that the signature claimed to be that of appellant in the documents prepared showing list of successful candidates appears to be doubtful. As far as powers of Authorities to remove the appellant at this stage is concerned, he would submit that this is done on the basis of complaint received subsequently and the Authority has been fair in holding the inquiry, as held. He would also refer to the statements given by witnesses to contend that nobody has spoken in favour of appellant that appellant has successfully passed the physical ability test. He would also point out that actually under the procedure names of both successful and unsuccessful candidates are entered in the documents and their signatures are obtained. In regard to 7 candidates in Tolly No. 3, who qualified the physical ability test and got selected, though they were not appearing in the video footage, he would submit that they are not before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that actually, in and around, at the same time at which promotional exercise was undertaken, which is subject matter of this appeal, direct recruitment procedure was also processed which also contemplated the physical ability test followed by written examination. Appellant participated in the physical ability test conducted for direct recruitment and he was declared successful. It so happened that marks secured by him was not sufficient to declare him successful. This would also, according to him, show that the case set up by respondents that appellant was actually unsuccessful in the physical ability test cannot be accepted. 10. True it is that appellant participated in the promotional exercise for Ranker Sub Inspector. He secured 259 marks in the written examination. He also secured 48 marks in regard to other aspects. Last candidate, who was selected, secured 305 marks. It is true that he was included in the list of successful candidates. 10. True it is that appellant participated in the promotional exercise for Ranker Sub Inspector. He secured 259 marks in the written examination. He also secured 48 marks in regard to other aspects. Last candidate, who was selected, secured 305 marks. It is true that he was included in the list of successful candidates. Matter was taken forward on the premise that he was successful in the physical ability test. There can be no doubt about these facts. Ordinarily, he would have secured selection as Sub Inspector. It is then a complaint was received regarding the fact that appellant and another that they had actually not been successful in the physical ability test and therefore, his candidature should not be considered. A preliminary inquiry was held. It is also most relevant that physical ability test was videographed. Apparently videography is a salutary measure to avoid charges of favouritism, irregularity or wrongdoing of any kind. The Deputy Commandant reported to the Commandant that appellant could not be seen at the finishing line in the videography. This triggered further inquiry. The inquiry assumed the form of taking of statements. As many as 18 witnesses were examined. They included the witnesses on whose statements was relied by the appellant and which we have already extracted in full. At this juncture, it is necessary to notice what appellant and videorecorder Mr. Rampal had stated in the statement. English translation of the their statement reads as under: “Appellant - Const. C.P. Hemraj Singh Mehra, P.S. Transit Camp, U.S. Nagar gave statements that I am recruit of the year 2006, I had participated in the race of Rankers sub Inspector examination of 2014-15 as held at 40th Battalion, PAC. I had participated in this race in Tolly No. 6. I had completed this race of 05 km. within the prescribed time (30 minutes); I had obtained token at the finishing point and had then deposited the token and I had put in any signature. Thereafter, I had gone to my posting place. Question- What clothes you had worn during the race? Answer- I had worn white T-shirt, half under wear, sports shoes of light brown colour in which lace of light yellow colour were tied, I had worn spectacles, I had moustaches also at the time of race. Thereafter, I had gone to my posting place. Question- What clothes you had worn during the race? Answer- I had worn white T-shirt, half under wear, sports shoes of light brown colour in which lace of light yellow colour were tied, I had worn spectacles, I had moustaches also at the time of race. Question - During the race, videography was done and in the videography of finishing point, you are not being seen, whereas others are being seen, who have been passed, what have to say in this respect? Ans.- In the finishing point video, I am not in a position to view myself. Perhaps there may be fault or error in the videography. I don’t have knowledge regarding videography. Question- Whether token was obtained by you at the finishing point and signature was made in the list placed nearby. Answer- Yes, I had obtained token and I had put my signature while depositing token. 3. The video recorder Shri Rampal S/o Shri Kshetrapal Singh R/o Gurukul Kangri University, Bhagwati Puram Colony, Street No. 2, Jagjeetpur, Haridwar stated that I am the resident of the above address. I was called for video coverage on behalf of Fine Studio, Bahadrabad, Haridwar of the race of Rankers Sub Inspector on 28.09.2015 to be conducted at 40th Battalion, P.A.C., Haridwar. So as to conduct Videography properly, I had conducted videography of the finishing point. In this race, Tolly wise race was being conducted; I had conducted video coverage and finishing point of about 07-08 Tollies. On completion of video coverage recording of all cameras, it was given to Diwakar Mixing Centre with a direction to load them in computer. That what I did, was the work I had done, I am not aware who made C.D. Question- Whether any error/defect has come in the camera during video coverage of finishing point? Answer- No, once video was started, camera was not stopped in between. Video coverage was done continuously. When a Tolly would be completed, camera would be closed in between but there was no defect in video coverage till race was completed, nor it would be closed. Question- Had you done video coverage of Tolly No. 6 and whether every candidate who participated in the race can be identified? Answer- Yes, whoever reached at finishing point in the race, can be identified easily.” 11. Question- Had you done video coverage of Tolly No. 6 and whether every candidate who participated in the race can be identified? Answer- Yes, whoever reached at finishing point in the race, can be identified easily.” 11. The next statement, which we would consider as most relevant, is the statement of Mr. Samarveer Singh Rawat, Group Leader, who even according to learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant, is the only witness who had spoken against the appellant. His statement reads as follows: “4. Shri Samarveer Singh Rawat, Group Leader “B” Group 40th Battalion, P.A.C., Haridwar, indicated in his report that on 28.09.2015 race of Rankers Sub Inspector recruitment examination 2014-15 was conducted at 40th Battalion P.A.C. For successful of race, my duty was at starting/finishing point with the following employees. It was with Shri Dinesh Chamoli, Constable Bharat Bhushan, Constable Pradeep Joshi, Constable Birendra Singh, Head Constable Soniya Chaudhary and Smt. Hema Pandey, A.S.I. (M) and some recruit constables. Video coverage of the above matter was seen by me, in which Constable 858 Jitendra Soradi reached at the finishing point and completed race but Constable 627 Hemraj Singh was not seen at the finishing point. On the basis of video coverage Constable 627 Hemraj Singh could not reach finishing point at right time and as such it appears that he had obtained token by fraud and has got himself included in the category of successful candidates.” 12. We cannot overlook the evaluation of the evidence and the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Commandant. It reads as follows: “Examination of Evidence I have to inform in respect of the above matter that on 28.09.2015 race of Ranker Sub Inspector recruitment examination 2014-15 was conducted at 40th Battalion P.A.C. For successful completion of the race, vide office letter No. Adju-Miss/2015 dated 27.09.2015 at several points-starting/finishing/mobile/training etc., officers/employees were posted on duty and video coverage of different points were got done through professional video camera operators. Shri Samarveer Singh Rawat, Group leader, Group ‘B’ was made as Assistant In-charge of Tolly No. 6 at starting/finishing points. During the inquiry, I had directed the Assistant In-charge of starting/finishing point Shri Samarveer Singh Rawat by even no. letter dated 01.12.2015 to examine deeply the video coverage to verify the correctness of the allegations made in the above complaint letter and to submit a detailed report of the matter in question. During the inquiry, I had directed the Assistant In-charge of starting/finishing point Shri Samarveer Singh Rawat by even no. letter dated 01.12.2015 to examine deeply the video coverage to verify the correctness of the allegations made in the above complaint letter and to submit a detailed report of the matter in question. The Assistant In-charge of starting/finishing point Shri Samarveer Singh Rawat has sent his report, which has been perused by me and on perusal, I found that Samarveer Singh Rawat indicated in his report that video coverage of the above subject matter was viewed by him, in which Constable 485 Jitendra Soradi has reached the finishing point and completed the race but Constable 627 Hemraj Singh has not reached the finishing point and it appears that he has obtained token by fraud and has got himself included among the ‘pass’ candidates and has put in his signature. Taking the above matter in question seriously statements of officers/employees posted on duty at several points during the race of Rankers Sub Inspector recruitment examination 2014-15 were recorded. All the officers/employees posted on duty indicated in their statements that after completion of prescribed time of the race any candidate was not permitted to come inside the finishing point, which fact stands verified from the video coverage also. Constable 627 Hemraj stated in his statements that I had completed 05 Kms. race in prescribed time (30 minutes), obtained token at finishing point and then deposited the token and then I had put in my signature there. The video coverage made during the said race was shown to constable 627 Hemraj and Constable Hemraj identified himself in video coverage at several points but Constable Hemraj himself could not see him in the video coverage, to have reached the finishing point, from which, it appears that Constable Hemraj Singh was included among ‘pass’ candidates erroneously or he had got himself included in the category of ‘pass’ candidates by fraud and has put in his signature. Conclusion- In the above matter, available documents of the file have been deeply perused and examined in connection with the race of Ranker Sub Inspector recruitment examination 2014-15 of Tolly no. Conclusion- In the above matter, available documents of the file have been deeply perused and examined in connection with the race of Ranker Sub Inspector recruitment examination 2014-15 of Tolly no. 6 held on 28.09.2015 in the compound of the Battalion and as regards Constable 627 Hemraj and Constable 485 Jitendra Soradi, who despite being unsuccessful in the race, were kept in the category of ‘pass’ candidates, statements of concerned officers/employees were taken during preliminary inquiry and it has become clear that the candidate Constable 485 C.P. Jitendra Soradi completed his race in the prescribed time limit whereas it has been verified that Constable 627 Hemraj did not reach finishing point during the race. The Group leader Shri Samarveer Singh Rawat (Assistant In-charge) of starting/finishing point has indicated in his report that Constable 627 Hemraj Singh has not reached the finishing point at right time, from which it appears that he has got himself included among ‘pass’ candidates by fraud and has made his signature. This act amounts to indiscipline towards duty and is indicative of incivility. Therefore, Constable 627 C.P. Hemraj Singh is held guilty for getting himself included in the category of passed candidates despite not reaching finishing point during the race.” 13. While it is true that action involved in this case has grave civil consequences for the appellant particularly in view of the lodging of FIR based on what transpired, according to respondents, but we remind ourselves that limits of judicial review cannot be different in this case than in any other case where administrative action of this nature is questioned. Judicial review does not grant writ Court powers of Appellate Court. Writ Court normally does not review findings of fact. The decision of the inquiry Authority may not be overturned merely because the writ Court thinks that another view is possible. Judicial review is premised even in such matter on the well known grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. See in this regard judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651 . It is undoubtedly true that we should also not overlook what has been stated in paragraph 81 and 82 of the judgment under the ground “irrationality”. Paras 81 and 82 of the judgment read as under: “81. Two other facets of irrationality may be mentioned. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651 . It is undoubtedly true that we should also not overlook what has been stated in paragraph 81 and 82 of the judgment under the ground “irrationality”. Paras 81 and 82 of the judgment read as under: “81. Two other facets of irrationality may be mentioned. (1) It is open to the court to review the decision-maker's evaluation of the facts. The court will intervene where the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the decision-maker. If the weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming, then a decision the other way, cannot be upheld. Thus, in Emma Hotels Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Environment, the Secretary of State referred to a number of factors which led him to the conclusion that a non-resident's bar in a hotel was operated in such a way that the bar was not an incident of the hotel use for planning purposes, but constituted a separate use. The Divisional Court analysed the factors which led the Secretary of State to that conclusion and, having done so, set it aside. Donaldson, L.J. said that he could not see on what basis the Secretary of State had reached his conclusion. (2) A decision would be regarded as unreasonable if it is impartial and unequal in its operation as between different classes. On this basis in R. V. Bernet London Borough Council, ex p Johnson 35 the condition imposed by a local authority prohibiting participation by those affiliated with political parties at events to be held in the authority's parks was struck down. 82. Bernard Schwartz in Administrative Law, 2nd Edn., p. 584 has this to say : "If the scope of review is too broad, agencies are turned into little more than media for the transmission of cases to the courts. That would destroy the values of agencies created to secure the benefit of special knowledge acquired through continuous administration in complicated fields. At the same time, the scope of judicial inquiry must not be so restricted that it prevents full inquiry into the question of legality. If that question cannot be properly explored by the judge, the right to review becomes meaningless. 'It makes judicial review of administrative orders a hopeless formality for the litigant. ... At the same time, the scope of judicial inquiry must not be so restricted that it prevents full inquiry into the question of legality. If that question cannot be properly explored by the judge, the right to review becomes meaningless. 'It makes judicial review of administrative orders a hopeless formality for the litigant. ... It reduces the judicial process in such cases to a mere feint.' Two overriding considerations have combined to narrow the scope of review. The first is that of deference to the administrative expert. In Chief Justice Neely's words: 'I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a judge and from those limitations I generalize to the inherent limitations of all appellate courts reviewing rate cases. It must be remembered that this Court sees approximately 1262 cases a year with five judges. I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, stock broker, or systems management analyst. It is the height of folly to expect judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of public utility operation.' It is not the function of a judge to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator. The result is a theory of review that limits the extent to which the discretion of the expert may be scrutinised by the non-expert judge. The alternative is for the court to overrule the agency on technical matters where all the advantages of expertise lie with the agencies, If a court were to review fully the decision of a body such as state board of medical examiners 'it would find itself wandering amid the maze of therapeutics or boggling at the mysteries of the Pharmacopoeia'. Such a situation as a state court expressed it many years ago 'is not a case of the blind leading the blind but of one who has always been deaf and blind insisting that he can see and hear better than one who has always had his eyesight and hearing and has always used them to the utmost advantage in ascertaining the truth in regard to the matter in question'. The second consideration leading to narrow review is that of calendar pressure. In practical terms it may be the more important consideration. The second consideration leading to narrow review is that of calendar pressure. In practical terms it may be the more important consideration. More than any theory of limited review it is the pressure of the judicial calendar combined with the elephantine bulk of the record in so many review proceedings which leads to perfunctory affirmance of the vast majority of agency decisions." 14. In other words, under the ground irrationality, which learned Sr. Advocate would also press into service, the Court would be entitled to interfere, if a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would come to such a conclusion. Under the head irrationality as explained by Hon’ble Apex Court, it may be open to the writ Court even to enter into the findings of fact and overturn them where overwhelming weight of material are loaded against the findings arrived at by the Authority. 15. Having referred to the parameters for judicial review and applying it to the facts of this case, can we hold that the decision which was taken, can be termed as “irrational” or “illegal” also keeping in mind the principle that the Court, does not act as Appellate Court. There is undoubtedly material in the form of statement given by Group Leader, which we have already referred to. The physical ability test in this case required the candidate to run a distance of 5 kms in 30 minutes. It is not enough to run it without reference to time. Elaborate procedure was apparently made. A number of officers were posted. Their duties were detailed, as is clear from the documents, made available by the appellant. The physical ability test was successfully completed by those who obviously reached the finishing line within the stipulated time. From the material available on record, it would appear that when participants ran the race and reached the finishing point a whistle was blown. They have the mechanism of stop watch. Those candidates who were successful, their numbers were noted down and tokens were given to them. Armed with token, they put their signature in the document where they had been shown as ‘pass’ and candidates, who were declared as ‘fail’, also were recorded as failed and their signatures were also obtained. 16. They have the mechanism of stop watch. Those candidates who were successful, their numbers were noted down and tokens were given to them. Armed with token, they put their signature in the document where they had been shown as ‘pass’ and candidates, who were declared as ‘fail’, also were recorded as failed and their signatures were also obtained. 16. When a complaint was received, can it be said that the State had no duty to act on the complaint as it is the duty of the State to hold selection in a fair and transparent manner. Inquiry in such circumstances cannot be said to be illegal. As noted above, inquiry at the initial stage consisted of examination of the video footage. It tended to show that the appellant did not make it and he was actually not entitled to be declared successful though he had been declared successful. Therefore, it is that by communication dated 09.12.2015 Commandant wrote to the Authority that his name be kept in the category of unsuccessful candidate. This document is not put in issue. Matter progressed further. They decided to hold further inquiry. As noted, statements were recorded. The whole event of physical ability test was videographed i.e. from the point race started till the time candidates reached the finishing point. A suggestion that there might have been an error was turned down. We noted that appellant, in fact, when he was examined, admitted that he could find himself at finishing line in the video. The only thing which he pointed out at that stage was that this fact could be attributed to some error in the videography. There is no suggestion of any mala fide against anyone in this case. There is no case that anyone is biased against appellant. It may be true that one of the witnesses namely Akhilesh Kumar, RI, ATC has said that at the finishing line, stop watch was being operated by the Superintendent of Police Mr. Ashok Bhatt. On completion of race within prescribed time, candidates would be manually stopped and barricade would be placed so that nobody would be able to enter the finishing point and there is no possibility of leveling allegation. This witness also does not state that appellant had actually run the race, as required. We may also incidentally notice statement of witness no. 13 Constable Ajay Mehra. This witness also does not state that appellant had actually run the race, as required. We may also incidentally notice statement of witness no. 13 Constable Ajay Mehra. He stated as follows: “Constable Commado Ajay Mehra, A.T.S. Team, Haridwar gave statements that I am employed in A.T.S. team Haridwar. On 28.09.2015 race of Ranker Sub Inspector Civil Police was held in this Battalion. For successful completion of this race, my duty was at finishing point for a cross check. Along with me Constable Commando Ashok Kumar, A.T.S. Team was also on duty. We were given list of each Tolly, in which there were number from 01 to 300. We were directed that as many as candidates would be ‘pass’ at the finishing point, we had to make tick on such numbers and thereafter to compare it with the token. We made tick in the list of each Tolly and all the lists were given to P.C. Shri Sandeep, Sir. Question- Whether tick list had been compared by you with the token? Answer- No, till we check a list, another Tolly of the race would reach the finishing point, and this all would continue. There was another team to take signature of the ‘pass’ candidates, where enough time was being spent in taking signatures of the candidates. Therefore, token could not be compared.” 17. On perusal of the material available on record, we notice that it is not as the Authority decided to drop name of the appellant from list of successful candidates without any material. There was video footage and it was not the only basis. Further inquiry was also held and 18 witnesses were examined. Deputy Commandant, who conducted inquiry, was of the view that appellant could not be treated as successful in physical ability test. Reminding ourselves again that the Court does not act as Appellate body in this matter, when the appellant was also shown video and he himself admitted that he was not seen at the finishing line in the video, we cannot interfere in judicial review. The evidence provided by way of videography and particularly the statement given by the videographer, which we have extracted in full, would persuade us to not overturn the decision in judicial review proceedings. 18. The contention of learned Sr. The evidence provided by way of videography and particularly the statement given by the videographer, which we have extracted in full, would persuade us to not overturn the decision in judicial review proceedings. 18. The contention of learned Sr. Advocate that appellant was successful in physical ability test conducted for direct recruitment held around at the same time and therefore, he would also be deemed as successful in the physical ability test conducted for promotional exercise does not appeal to us. The fact that he may have run the race successfully in another race cannot be a substitute for his being successful in the race in question. Equally unacceptable is the argument of learned Sr. Advocate that the stage having been crossed when appellant name could have been jettisoned, it was incumbent for the authorities, not to oust the appellant in the manner done. 19. It is not, as if selection procedure relied upon by the appellant contemplates ousting candidates, who are successful. In this case appellant was in fact declared successful. Therefore, if subsequently on the basis of complaint received and on holding inquiry, if it is found appellant had not been successful and before his appointment, he could be eliminated, we see no reason at all to interfere in the procedure adopted by the respondents. We cannot understand the rationale behind the argument that appellant must have been selected, appointed and then, an inquiry must be held for eliminating him. Appellant was not appointed pursuant to the selection as selection was not completed in the form of an appointment order. Therefore, the argument also does not appeal to us. Statements which are relied on by the appellant also do not support the appellant that appellant successfully passed the physical ability test. It is in the nature such statement that evidence provided by videography about which we have already spoken earlier in the judgment may tend to assume clinching value. 20. We do not think that we should permit the appellant at the appellate stage to refer to video provided to appellant under the RTI Act in respect of another Tolly No. 3 relating to 7 participants who are not shown video at the finishing line but still being selected. We may lastly notice that in the relief sought appellant had made no attempt to seek any declaration or Certiorari to quash proceedings of non selection of appellant. 21. We may lastly notice that in the relief sought appellant had made no attempt to seek any declaration or Certiorari to quash proceedings of non selection of appellant. 21. In such circumstances, we see no reason to take different view from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. We only make it clear that nothing mentioned in this judgment will influence the Authorities in the FIR or if it goes to Court.