Hegde, J. - (1.) This is an unfortunate case. The petitioner, a bright young student is approaching this Court for the second time, to seek justice. He h0ad a brilliant academic career. He secured high marks in all the examinations in which he appeared. In the Pre-University Examination, he secured First class with Grade D plus in Physics and Chemistry and A plus in Biology. He stood 4th in his college. Grade D plus represents 85 to 99 per cent marks and A plus 65 to 75 per cent marks. He applied for admission for a seat in one of the medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. He was called for interview but was not selected as he is said to have secured low marks in the interview. He challenged before this Court the selections made on various grounds in Writ Petition No. 285 of 1970. That petition was heard along with another petition and those petitions were allowed on September 23, 1970. In that petition the petitioner had alleged that the selections made were illegal for various reasons. He had also alleged that the selections were manipulated by the Government. This Court came to the conclusion that the allegations of mala fide had not been established but yet the selections were held to be invalid for the reasons mentioned in our order dated 23rd September, 1970. Despite coming to the conclusion that the selections made were lavalid, we did not strike down the selections in view at the fact that the selected candidates had not been made parties to those petitions. We directed the State of Tamil Nadu to immediately Constitute a separate expert committee consisting of eminent medical practitioners (after excluding all those who were the members of the previous committee) for making selections to the 24 unfilled seats. We further ordered:"The selection shall be made on State-wise basis. The committee shall interview only the candidates who are shown in the waiting list, the persons who unsuccessfully moved the High Court of Madras and the two petitioners before this Court. They shall allot separate marks under the five heads mentioned in the rule. The committee shall take into consideration only matters laid down in the rule exclude from consideration all irrelevant matters and thereafter prepare a gradation list to fill up the 24 seats mentioned earlier."
(2.) In pursuance of the above direction, the State of Tamil Nadu constituted a selection committee and the selection committee has selected 24 students for being admitted into one or the other medical colleges run by the Government of Tamil Nadu but the petitioner has not been selected. Thereafter the petitioner has come up with this writ potition challenging the validity of the selections made. The main contention taken by him in his writ petition is that in view of the widespread publicity given to our previous judgment by the newspapers and the radio, there had been a widespread discontent and criticism in regard to the prevailing system of interviews. That widespread publicity affected very much the prestige of the State Government of Tamil Nadu and therefore the Government of Tamil Nadu was particular to see that the petitioner was not selected. He sought to establish this plea primarily on the basis of three circumstances namely (1) that during the interview the members of the selection committee showed open hostility towards him; (2) that despite the order of this Court the selection committee called for interview several persons in addition to those directed to be interviewed by this Court and it is only after he moved this Court to take action against the committee for disobeying the orders of this Court, the committee refrained from interviewing the candidates other than those directed to be interviewed by this Court and (3) the selection commit has deliberately contravened the directions of this Court.
(3.) The members of the, serection committee have denied the allegation that they had exhibited any hostility towards the petitioner during the interview. On the question as to what happened during the interview, we have only the version of the petitioner on the one side and of the members of the committee on the other. On the basis of the material before us it cannot be said that the allegations made by the petitioner are established. The charge of mala fide is a serious charge and the same has to be established by satisfactory evidence. The fact that the petitioner could not get any outside evidence to establish what happened at the time of the interview cannot shift the burden that is on him to prove his allegations.;