The court emphasized the importance of supporting allegations with material on record and verifying the factual accuracy of statements made in the petition.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The prayer of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the respondents be directed' to conduct Clinical Examination afresh. The petitioner had appeared in Pre. M.Ch. (Plastic Surgery) Examination, 1995 which was conducted by the Rajasthan University from S.M.S., Medical College, Jaipur, Centre Jaipur. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 Dr. (Miss) Malti Gupta was annoyed with him and 'on account of this he was awarded only 3 marks and that the entire examination was malafide. The aforesaid allegations made in para 14 of the petition have been categorically denied by the respondent No. 4 Dr. (Miss) Malti Gupta. She has also stated that the petitioner was awarded 5 marks and it is wrong to say that he was awarded only three marks.

2. After going through the pleadings of the parties, I am not convinced by the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been awarded less marks on account of any malice or bias on the part of the respondent No. 4. The allegations are quite vague and are not supported by any material on record. On the other hand the material shows that there were 15 candidates who had appeared in the Clinical Examination for the competitive entrance examination for admission to M. Ch. (Plastic Surgery) held on 27th March, 1995. The position of the petitioner was 7th in the order of merit, as such he could not get the admission. Three candidates namely; Pallavi Verma, Rohitash Krishan Agrawal and Arun Kumar Gupta, had obtained more marks to get the admission for 3 seats available in the subject.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the previous record of the petitioner awarding of less marks to the petitioner in Clinical Examination is arbitrariness. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder Pathak v. University of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1986 RLR 498.

4. The aforesaid case has been decided on the facts of his own and it cannot have any relevancy in the present case as there is no material in the present record to hold that the petitioner was awarded 5 marks in arbitrariness. It also appears 'from para 14 of the writ petition that the petitioner has made incorrect statements that he was told by respondent No. 4 that he was awarded only three marks. This statement is factually incorrect as he has been awarded 5 marks. I have also seen the original marksheet which has been produced by Mr. Mathur for the perusal of this Court.

5. After considering the entire material and the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petitions is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed.

*******