JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Srivastava, J. 1. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the State-respondents assailing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.8.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 15360 of 2018 (Ashif Ali v. State of U.P. and 2 others) whereby the writ petition has been allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- directing the appellants/respondents to conduct a fresh physical efficiency test of the petitioner/respondent after six weeks. Further direction has been issued to the appellants/respondents to keep the original records pertaining to the writ petitioner/respondent in a sealed cover and transmit the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura for its safe custody, while considering the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment afresh. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 150 days. This Court vide order dated 5.3.2019 had condoned the delay and directed the office to allot a regular number to the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that pursuant to the order dated 22.2.2017 passed in Writ-A No. 18981 of 2014, the writ petitioner/respondent was called to participate in the physical efficiency test on 7.5.2018 after he had furnished a declaration of his fitness to take the physical efficiency test and actually participated therein, but failed. The factum of participation in the test aforesaid was disputed by the writ petitioner/respondent on the ground that he had met with an accident on 4.5.2018 after submitting the fitness certificate and was compelled to participate in the physical efficiency test with a fractured leg. Since, the order dated 5.3.2019 recorded the fact that the writ petitioner/respondent had not participated in the test, a modification of the order dated 5.3.2019 was sought. The said application was turned down by this Court vide order dated 19.4.2019 holding that the appeal itself be decided on merits and all points available may be raised during the hearing of the appeal. 3. The parties have exchanged affidavits reiterating their respective stands. 4. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioner/respondent opposing the appeal has filed a counter-affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the father of the writ petitioner/respondent was a permanent employee posted as Constable who admittedly died in harness on 31.3.2005. The writ petitioner/respondent applied for compassionate appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector vide application dated 16.2.2008. 4. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioner/respondent opposing the appeal has filed a counter-affidavit stating inter-alia therein that the father of the writ petitioner/respondent was a permanent employee posted as Constable who admittedly died in harness on 31.3.2005. The writ petitioner/respondent applied for compassionate appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector vide application dated 16.2.2008. The writ petitioner/respondent was permitted to appear in the physical efficiency test for the post of S.I. (under Dying in Harness) Recruitment-2017, fixed for 7.5.2018. The petitioner/respondent was required to collect his admit card from the office of SSP, Mathura on 4.5.2018. The petitioner/respondent after collecting the admit card met with an accident on the same day i.e. 4.5.2018 resulting in fracture of his right leg and the right leg was put in plaster. He was advised to take complete rest for four weeks. It is stated that the information of the accident was intimated through registered post vide application dated 5.5.2018 alongwith medical certificate issued by the District Hospital, Agra. The petitioner was also advised to appear before the Board on 7.5.2018 i.e. the date fixed for the physical test and his claim for postponing his physical test in the next recruitment would be considered. However, the Board did not adhere to the request and the petitioner was compelled to participate in the physical efficiency test and was declared failed. The petitioner/respondent thereafter moved an application before the appellant No. 1 on 9.5.2018 requesting action against the Board. However, no action was taken and the result of the selection was declared on 23.5.2018 wherein the petitioner was declared not selected. The petitioner moved another application dated 31.5.2018 before the appellant No. 3 which too was rejected vide order dated 11.6.2018 holding that there is no provision for appearing as second chance in the physical efficiency test as per Board Circular. The writ petitioner, however, stated that the appellants permitted second chance to some of candidates under dying in harness category who were absent in the physical efficiency test, but the writ petitioner has been denied the chance arbitrarily. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9.8.2018 issued direction for constituting a Medical Board to examine the writ petitioner and submit its opinion in a sealed cover as to whether the petitioner had in fact suffered such a fracture or not? It is also contended that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9.8.2018 issued direction for constituting a Medical Board to examine the writ petitioner and submit its opinion in a sealed cover as to whether the petitioner had in fact suffered such a fracture or not? As also whether it was possible for such a person to run 10 rounds after three days of fracture itself by the next date and the Medical Board so constituted in its report dated 27.8.2018 opined that a person with a fractured cannot take 10 rounds of a 400 meter field. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a supplementary-affidavit dated 1.4.2019 clearly denying the stand taken by the writ petitioner/respondent that he was compelled to participate in the physical efficiency test despite a fractured leg. It is the specific case of the appellants that the writ petitioner/respondent with Roll No. 1810159, Bib No. 1262 participated in the physical fitness test on 8.5.2018 and completed 10 rounds of 400 meters total in 39 minutes 13 seconds whereas he was required to complete 12 rounds of 400 meters in 35 minutes and thus could not qualify the test. The writ petitioner/respondent never made a declaration that he is not physically fit to take the test and also made the signature after completion of the test result whereof were declared before the ADM, Medical Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellants have also filed the screen shots of the race to demonstrate the fact that the writ petitioner/respondent actually participated in the race/physical efficiency test without any plaster on the leg. 6. The above statement of fact pleaded by the appellants in their supplementary-affidavit has been refuted by the writ petitioner/respondent by filing supplementary counter-affidavit by stating that he had sent an application to the department two days before the commencement of the physical efficiency test on 5.5.2018 by registered post alongwith medical certificate. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. We are of the opinion that the fate of the appeal rests on the question as to whether the writ petitioner/respondent was compelled to take the physical efficiency test by the appellants despite suffering from fracture in his right leg as alleged by him or the test was taken voluntarily by him after submitting fitness certificate as asserted by the appellants. 9. 9. A perusal of the record reveals that the writ petitioner/respondent has placed reliance upon a medical certificate issued by the District Hospital, Agra bearing OPD No. 136596 (entered by hand) dated 4.5.2018. The certificate records fracture of shaft (Rt) Tibia and the patient is advised rest from 4.5.2018 to four weeks. Another document filed alongwith the medical certificate is a document described as an ''Out Patient Record'' which bears the date of 22.5.2018 and is signed by the Dr. M. Lal, Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Agra, Reg. No. 24722. This document also bears the OPD No. 136596 (printed same as in the Medical Certificate). Yet another document filed as Annexre-4 to the writ petition is a Slip issued by the Radiologist, District Hospital, Agra accompanying the X-ray report. This document bears the date 4.5.2018 and OPD No. 136596 written by hand. 10. Further the writ petitioner/respondent is stated to have intimated the fact that he met with an accident on 4.5.2018 and suffered a fracture in his right leg vide registered letter dated 5.5.2018 requesting for being given a fresh date instead of 7.5.2018 for physical efficiency test. The writ petitioner/respondent has also filed the postal receipt bearing No. 4375. The date mentioned is not very clear but may be presumed to be 5.5.2018 as stated by the writ petitioner/respondent. 11. The writ petitioner/respondent is stated to have appeared in the physical efficiency test on 8.5.2018 and participated in the same, although he asserts that he was forced to participate in the same. The appellants on the other hand submit that the petitioner took the test without protest and failed. No intimation on 5.5.2018 as alleged by the petitioner was ever received by them. The petitioner vide letter dated 9.5.2018 (Annexre-6 to the writ petition) is stated to have written to the Principal Secretary Home, Government of U.P. complaining about how he was forced to take the test and requested for a fresh test after he is fit. The said letter is stated to have been sent on 9.5.2018. A receipt issued from the postal department bearing receipt No. 4376 dated 9.5.2018 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 12. We have examined the above mentioned documents in the light of the respective stands of the parties. We find that postal receipt bearing No. 4376 was issued on 9.5.2018. A receipt issued from the postal department bearing receipt No. 4376 dated 9.5.2018 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 12. We have examined the above mentioned documents in the light of the respective stands of the parties. We find that postal receipt bearing No. 4376 was issued on 9.5.2018. However, the letter dated 5.5.2018 is stated to have been dispatched on 5.5.2018 (as alleged by the writ petitioner) and receipt whereof issued by the postal department bears the No. 4375. It is rather surprising that the postal department has not issued any registered letters between 5.5.2018 and 9.5.2018. This fact is also apparent from the registry number appearing on the receipt No. 4375 which is RU18837153 and the registry number mentioned in the receipt No. 4376 in respect of the letter dated 9.5.2018 is RU18837154. This fact coupled with the screen shots brought on record by the appellants does not inspire confidence about the version of the writ petitioner/respondent. We do not doubt that the writ petitioner did not meet with an accident resulting in fracture of his right leg, but the said fracture has occurred subsequent to the date of physical efficiency test held on 8.5.2018. The screen shots do not disclose that the writ petitioner/respondent was compelled to take the test with a bandaged/plastered leg even though it is the case of the writ petitioner as set out in Para 3 (d) of the counter-affidavit filed on 15.3.2019 in this appeal which is being quoted herewith: ''3 (d). That the respondent/petitioner proceeded for getting admit card from the office of S.S.P. Mathura on 4.5.2018 and while he was returning, unfortunately he met an accident in District Agra and received serious injuries and immediately consulted the doctor of District Hospital, Agra who has declared fracture in his right leg and his leg was plastered. The senior consultant has also advised to take complete rest of four weeks.'' 13. The same stand has been taken in Para 8 of the writ petition which is being quoted hereunder: ''8. That the petitioner proceeded for getting Admit Card form the office of S.S.P. Mathura on 4.5.2018 and while returning, unfortunately he met an accident in District Agra and received serious injuries of fracture in his right leg and immediately consulted the Doctor of District Hospital, Agra. That the petitioner proceeded for getting Admit Card form the office of S.S.P. Mathura on 4.5.2018 and while returning, unfortunately he met an accident in District Agra and received serious injuries of fracture in his right leg and immediately consulted the Doctor of District Hospital, Agra. His leg was in plaster and the senior consultant has advised to take complete rest of four weeks. A photocopy Medical Certificate issued by Medical Officer, District Hospital, Agra dated 4.5.2018 alongwith photograph of injured leg covered with Kachha Plaster is being field herewith and marked as Annexure 4 to this writ petition.'' 14. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner/respondent was medically fit i.e. did not have the fractured at the time of taking the physical efficiency test on 8.5.2018 and having failed therein and suffered a fracture subsequently has cooked up the plea that the appellants forced him to take the test with a fracture. The plea found favour with the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was allowed primarily basing conclusions on the subsequent report of the Medical Board constituted under the orders of the learned Single Judge which reported that a person with a fracture cannot take 10 rounds of 400 meter field. However, the screen shots of the physical efficiency test showing the writ petitioner/respondent participating in the same and the results declared thereof belie the version of the writ petitioner/respondent. 15. Consequently, we find that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellants to conduct a fresh physical efficiency test of the writ petitioner and consider his claim for compassionate appointment afresh particularly in view of the fact that the Rules and Government Orders governing the issue do not permit any second attempt to a candidate who has failed the physical test in the first attempt. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition with cost is set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed.