Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
Two arguments have been made by the learned
counsel for the appellant:
(i) that there was no occasion for the Selection
Committee to have re-checked and re-evaluted the answer
sheets; and
(ii)that some members of the Selection Committee
were actuated by mala fides and had deliberately
awarded higher marks in the viva to Nitai, the private
respondent.
We have gone through the judgment of the
Division Bench and find that the Court itself had called for the model answer paper and found that the
corrections made by the Selection Committee were fully
justified, and that this was a case of a mere
rectification and not re-evaluation as contended by
the learned counsel for the appellant.
The second argument of the learned counsel is
equally without merit. We see that though the members
of the Selection Committee are arrayed as parties, only
vague allegations of mala fides have been made and
nothing substantial has been put on record. We agree
with the learned counsel for the appellant that it is
extremely difficult to give details of mala fides
beyond a point but at the same time (we believe) to
arrive at a finding on mala fides, the Court has to
rely on cogent circumstances and not mere suspicion.
In this view of the matter, we find no merit in
this matter. The appeals are dismissed.