JUDGMENT : M. Duraiswamy, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 06.07.2021 made in W.P(MD)No.1078 of 2021 on the file of this Court.) 1. Challenging the order, dated 06.07.2021, passed in W.P(MD)No.1078 of 2021, the writ petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal. 2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the impugned memorandum, dated 05.01.2021 on the file of the respondents and to quash the same, as it is illegal and wrong as the petitioner was participating 400 meters running event in PET and directing the respondents to properly verify and produce the petitioner’s PET coding sheet and video footage in respect of 400 meters running event conducted on 14.10.2020 at Rajarathinam Stadium, Chennai and allow the petitioner to participate in the interview for the post of Sub Inspector of Police [Taluk or Armed Reserve (Men/women/Transgender) and Tamil Nadu Special Police (Men)] 2019 under Notification No.2/2019. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he participated in 400 meters running event and he completed within the time limit and obtained two stars. The respondents contended that in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and in rope climbing, the appellant obtained 2 stars (5 marks), in long jump, he obtained 1 star (2 marks) and participated in 400 meters running event and he has completed the running event in 70.47 seconds and obtained 1 star (2 marks). In Physical Efficiency Test, he obtained 9 marks and in written examination, he secured 54.50 marks and in total, he obtained 63.50 marks. Since the petitioner belongs to MBC/DNC, the cut-off mark was fixed as 64. Since the petitioner had obtained 63.50 marks, he was not called for interview. The respondents also contended that in the Video clippings of 400 meters running event, the petitioner had taken 70.47 seconds to complete 400 meters running event instead of the stipulated time of 70 seconds to obtain 2 stars. 4. It is pertinent to note that after the completion of the Physical Efficiency Test on 14.10.2020, a coding sheet was prepared and the same was signed by the appellant as well as the Chairman and members of the Sub- Committee appointed for selection of the Sub-Inspectors. 5. 4. It is pertinent to note that after the completion of the Physical Efficiency Test on 14.10.2020, a coding sheet was prepared and the same was signed by the appellant as well as the Chairman and members of the Sub- Committee appointed for selection of the Sub-Inspectors. 5. Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the appellant has signed the coding sheet, after the completion of Physical Efficiency Test, he has only signed in a blank coding sheet and the entries found in the coding sheet was not written on that day. 6. However, on a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition as well as the grounds of appeal filed in the Writ Appeal, it is clear that the appellant has not whispered a single word against the coding sheet. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. 7. On a perusal of the coding sheet, it could be seen that the appellant participated in 400 meters running event and took 70.47 seconds to complete 400 meters running event. When the document, namely, the coding sheet, which was also signed by the appellant, establishes that the appellant took 70.47 seconds to complete 400 meters running event, he cannot now contend against the said document and say that he has completed 400 meters running event in 69 seconds. Further, in the absence of any pleadings with regard to the entries made in the coding sheet, we are not interfering with the same. 8. That apart, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition took into consideration the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.8 of 2020 etc., batch, dated 29.01.2020 [A.Parthiban and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and another], wherein the Full Bench of this Court held as follows:- “42. 8. That apart, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition took into consideration the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.8 of 2020 etc., batch, dated 29.01.2020 [A.Parthiban and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and another], wherein the Full Bench of this Court held as follows:- “42. Having reasoned out the issues raised before us, we accordingly answer the questions as follows:- i. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for correcting any error may ordinarily be not maintainable involving factual disputes, but, on the establishment of a patent factual error leading to prejudice and resulting in violation of legal or fundamental rights or otherwise involving malafides, a writ petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to avoid or otherwise rectify a denial of opportunity in matters of employment.” 9. The learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.