ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court for direction upon the respondents for taking a fresh physical test or to declare the petitioner qualified in the running test as he was declared disqualified due to lagging just for a few seconds because of scorching sun. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement bearing Advertisement No.05/2017 was floated for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in which it was clearly mentioned that a male candidate should run 10 K.M. within 60 minutes. The present petitioner fulfilling the requisite qualification, applied for the same. The petitioner qualified in the written exams and was asked to appear in the physical exams. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though he fulfilled requisite qualification and was declared successful in the written exams but he could not succeed in the physical exams due to fact that he lagged just a few second because of scorching sun, for which the respondent-authorities themselves were responsible. 4. It is specific case of the petitioner that on the fateful day, he reported at the ground premises at 6:30 am itself and remained waiting for four long hours for his turn and was allowed to participate in the running test in the scorching sun and lagged behind for a few second only, but the respondents-authorities declared him unsuccessful in the running test. As the petitioner was declared unsuccessful, he has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 5. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is physically fit and also he has qualified in the written test. If he be given an opportunity, he would certainly qualify in the physical test also. He was declared disqualified not because of the reason that he could not run 10 K.M. but because he took just few seconds more to complete the running test. It was because of the scorching sun, which made him tired and as such, because of the prevailing unavoidable circumstances, he could not qualify in the physical test. Learned Counsel emphatically argues that as the petitioner is physically fit and if a fresh opportunity is given to him, he will qualify the physical test. 6. On the other hand, no counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Learned Counsel emphatically argues that as the petitioner is physically fit and if a fresh opportunity is given to him, he will qualify the physical test. 6. On the other hand, no counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. However, learned Counsel for the State argues that it is only after the petitioner has been declared unsuccessful, he has approached this Hon'ble Court with a frivolous grounds for granting him an opportunity for appearing in fresh physical exams which cannot be permitted in view of the settled principle of law. 8. Learned Counsel further submits that once the petitioner has appeared in the examination, he cannot be permitted to do away from the terms and conditions as envisaged in the advertisement. The Rule also, as envisaged in the Police Manual do not permit for a fresh physical examination when the candidates have appeared and have been declared unsuccessful. The petitioner never challenged the advertisement at the initial stage. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Rule 653 of the Police Manual talks about the appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. There cannot be class within class. There cannot be different yardstick for appointment. The petitioner has been declared successful in the written examination but could not qualify in the Physical test. Several other candidates along with the petitioner appeared in the said physical exams and were declared successful, it is only this petitioner, who is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the advertisement because he could not qualify in the physical test. The grounds taken by the petitioner is frivolous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. No case is made out for interference in the present case, accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed.