JUDGMENT : SATISH KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. These Special Appeals (Writ) have been filed against order dated 3-9-2020, whereby writ petitions filed by the present appellants and others challenging the result of Physical Efficiency Test (PET) conducted in the recruitment process of Sub Inspector under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1989’) have been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 5-10-2016 recruitment process for the post of Sub Inspector was initiated under the Rules of 1989. As per scheme of the recruitment the candidates securing 36% in each paper and 40% in aggregate in written examination were called upon for PET. The appellants herein after qualifying written examination participated in PET. The result of PET was declared on 8-1-2020, wherein all appellants were declared fail. The appellants and others challenged the result of PET by way of writ petitions. During pendency of writ petitions, they were provisionally allowed for the interview, but ultimately, their writ petitions were dismissed by the impugned order, against which these special appeals have been filed. 3. On the prayer of appellants, the marks secured by them were procured by the court. The appeals of such candidates, who could not secure above the cut off marks, were dismissed as having become infructuous. Remaining appeals of such appellants, who could not qualify PET, but secured above the cut off marks were heard and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that at the time of PET, they were informed that they have qualified the test, but afterwards they were deliberately and malafidely declared fail only to accommodate the candidates who were already serving in police department. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the above contention of the appellants is baseless and accordingly not acceptable at all. 7. On considering the above rival submissions, we find that there is no provision under the relevant Rules that the candidates shall be instantly informed about the result at the time of PET. The PET was conducted by constituting the board consisting of highly placed police officers viz. Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police, and the Superintendent of Police. The PET was conducted by constituting the board consisting of highly placed police officers viz. Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police, and the Superintendent of Police. Out of total 9259 candidates qualified for PET, only 1926 candidates could obtain minimum qualifying marks in PET. The candidates already serving in police department were also declared fail and so many candidates other than serving in police department have remained successful in PET. No specific averment has been made as to who favoured the particular candidates serving in police department. Thus, the bald allegation of favouring the serving employees of police department is quite imaginary and baseless. If such contention is acknowledged, all other unsuccessful candidates securing even more marks in written examination, than the appellants would also raise similar claim and no recruitment would reach to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants is not tenable at all. 8. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in Olympic games and other similar tests Micro chips are used to ensure accuracy and transparency. On earlier occasion in the recruitment of police constables, the respondents also used Micro chips for the purpose, but this time instead of Micro chip, stop watch has been used by which accuracy cannot be adhered to, therefore, whole PET deserves to be cancelled or the appellants should be provided one more chance for PET. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents have submitted that the stop watch was used for all candidates in PET. No discrimination was caused to the appellants. They all were aware of using the stop watch, but they did not object to it at the time of PET, therefore, they cannot be now allowed to make objections after they were declared fail in the PET. 10. True it is that Micro chip can be the better technique to ensure accuracy in PET, but admittedly the respondents have used the stop watch for all candidates participating in PET. None of the appellants have objected to use of stop watch. They have not been discriminated in any manner. A person who has no trust or faith in the system will raise doubts regarding the use of Micro chip also which would lead to an endless process, therefore, only on the basis of use of stop watch instead of Micro chip, whole process cannot be thrown away. 11. They have not been discriminated in any manner. A person who has no trust or faith in the system will raise doubts regarding the use of Micro chip also which would lead to an endless process, therefore, only on the basis of use of stop watch instead of Micro chip, whole process cannot be thrown away. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the respondents themselves conducted videography of PET for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and transparency of the test. The contention of the appellants could very well be verified from the videography, but the same was not called and examined by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, a request has been made to call for the videography before the court to verify their contention. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that videography was conducted for specific purpose i.e. (i) to ensure that the police personnel deputed at different test centers would not favour any particular candidate, (ii) to avoid impersonation, and (iii) to keep a vigil on law and order situation if such a situation would have arisen; and not for adjudging the time taken by the candidates in activities of PET. However, a High Level Committee was constituted to consider the grievances of the candidates through videography and no inconsistency was found in the marks allocated to the appellants. 13. As observed above, the version of the appellants that they were informed at the time of PET having qualified the test has been found to be baseless. The videography of PET has not been conducted to adjudge or verify the time taken by the candidates in running activity. In order to maintain transparency and to have effective control over the impersonation and favoritism, the videography was conducted. On complaints received from unsuccessful candidates, a High level Committee comprising of Inspector General of Police (Headquarter) Rajasthan Jaipur (Chairman), Superintendent of Police (Recruitment and Promotion Board) Rajasthan Jaipur (Member) and Additional Superintendent of Police, Legal Cell, Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Member) was constituted to consider the grievances of the candidates. After verification by this Committee, no inconsistency was found in awarding the marks in PET. It has been categorically submitted on affidavit that the accurate time taken in activities of running cannot be ascertained from videography. In such a situation no fruitful purpose would be served by calling the videography in court. 14. After verification by this Committee, no inconsistency was found in awarding the marks in PET. It has been categorically submitted on affidavit that the accurate time taken in activities of running cannot be ascertained from videography. In such a situation no fruitful purpose would be served by calling the videography in court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that since the appellants have secured more than the cut off marks, they should be given an opportunity to qualify the PET. Reliance has been placed on Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal Nos. 661-664 of 2020, decided on 24.1.2020, State of Rajasthan vs. Shankra Ram and Others, Civil Appeal No. 665 of 2020, decided on 24.1.2020 and State of Rajasthan vs. Thawara Ram, Special Leave Petition No. 12884 of 2019, decided on 11.12.2019. 15. Learned counsel for respondents have submitted that the appellants have no valid ground to conduct the PET afresh for them. 16. Considering the above rival submissions, we find that that as per scheme of the recruitment only those candidates are qualified for interview who have secured minimum 50% marks in PET. The present appellants have not obtained the minimum qualifying marks in PET. Hence, even after securing more marks than the cut off, they are not eligible for selection as per Rules. If the present appellants are given one more chance for PET, it would be grave injustice and discrimination with other candidates who have obtained more marks in written test than the appellants, and who also could not qualify PET. 17. In the above cited judgments, the date and time of PET was so fixed that the candidates were not in a position to reach the destination of PET in time. In such peculiar circumstances, one opportunity was granted to the candidates for PET, but, as discussed above, in this case, the appellants have participated in PET but failed and now there is no justifiable ground to provide one more opportunity to the appellants. Thus, the above cited judgments being quite distinguishable to these cases do not help the appellants. 18. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the field of PET being muddy, the appellants could not perform as per their full capability, therefore, the PET should be cancelled. 19. Above contention is self contradictory to the stands taken by the appellants. 18. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the field of PET being muddy, the appellants could not perform as per their full capability, therefore, the PET should be cancelled. 19. Above contention is self contradictory to the stands taken by the appellants. On one hand, they claim to have qualified the PET, and at the same time, they are objecting the condition of the field being muddy. All the candidates including the appellants did not raise any objection at the time of PET. Thus, the objection as to condition of the field is also not tenable at all. 20. In view of the above discussion and reasons stated, we find that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter in light of the judicial pronouncements cited by both the sides. No case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present special appeals are dismissed.