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 a