JUDGMENT : R. Vijayakumar, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order, dated 09.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.13873 of 2021, pass such other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order, dated 09.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition W.P.No.13873 of 2021. 2. The Writ Petitioner is the appellant herein. The Writ Petitioner applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the notification called for by the second respondent herein. The Writ Petitioner participated in the written examination and thereafter attended the physical efficiency test. One of the physical efficiency test is that the petitioner should complete 400 meters run within 80 seconds to secure two marks and if he completes within 70 seconds, he will be allotted five marks. The petitioner attended 400 meters run on 14.10.2020 and according to the petitioner, he completed the said run on 69.34 seconds and he should be awarded five marks. The case of the petitioner is that the authorities have mistakenly recorded it as 70.34 seconds and hence, he was allotted only two marks. 3. The Writ Petitioner gave a representation to the respondent on 28.04.2021, seeking a copy of the video recording of his 400 meters run. On 21.05.2021, he received a reply stating that he has completed 400 meters run only at 70.34 seconds. Hence, his request was rejected. 4. The Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.13873 of 2021, challenging the said selection process and to provide him another chance in 400 meters run. The respondent herein filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the said Writ Petition on the ground that they have properly recorded the time taken by the Writ Petitioner to complete 400 meters run and the second chance cannot be given to the Writ Petitioner. While the Writ Petition was pending, the respondent was directed to show the video recording to the Writ Petitioner. Accordingly on 04.08.2021, the Writ Petitioner and his counsel have seen the video of 400 meters run. After seeing the video recording, the Writ Petitioner submitted a letter to the respondent that they were not able to pause the video and he cannot see the side view of approaching the end line. Accordingly on 04.08.2021, the Writ Petitioner and his counsel have seen the video of 400 meters run. After seeing the video recording, the Writ Petitioner submitted a letter to the respondent that they were not able to pause the video and he cannot see the side view of approaching the end line. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the video has shown the ending time as 70.38 seconds. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Writ Petitioner was not permitted to pause the video from the beginning of the race. He further contended that though the timing is shown as 70.38 seconds in the digital clock, unless the side view of the video is shown, it will not be possible to find out the actual timing taken by the Writ Petitioner to complete 400 meters run. 6. Pending Writ Appeal, the video recording of the 400 meters run was shown to the petitioner from the side view also. Admittedly the side view of the video clearly indicates that the petitioner has completed 400 meters run at 70.32 seconds and hence he has been rightly awarded two marks. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that he may be given another chance to prove his physical efficiency. 8. The First Bench of this Court in order dated 26.10.2021 in W.A.(MD) No.1706 of 2021 in The Director General of Police and another Vs. P. Jeyasundar in paragraph No.5 has held as follows:- ''As a matter of principle, it cannot be accepted as a legal proposition that merely because a person was unable to perform upto his expectations on the date that the physical ability test was scheduled, such person has to be afforded a subsequent opportunity to demonstrate his physical ability or the extent of his fitness''. 9. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble First Bench, We were not inclined to accept the prayer seeking for the second chance to run the 400 meters. Seen from any angle, the order of the learned single judge does not suffer from any illegality and we were not inclined to interfere in the order of the learned single judge and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.