JUDGMENT M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a Writ Petition which has been filed by a journalist, when the process of selection of candidate- to the M.R.A. Course in the Departments of Management Studies of the University of Madras, was under way. He has averred in his petition that respondents 2 and 3, who are Professor and Head of the Department of Management Studies and Reader, Department of Management Studies, University of Madras, respectively, were involved in grave irregularities in July, 1979 when admissions to the same Department were being made. his case was that in spite of these two persons being earlier involved in irregularities they continued to associate with the selection of candidates and, therefore, the Selection Committee could not be said to be an impartial Selection Committee. Therefore, the appellant had asked for a stay of the selection of the respective candidates. 2. The learned Judge, who heard this petition, declined to entertain the petition taking the view that merely because there were discrepancies earlier noticed in 1979 and especially when these discrepancies were rectified, there is no ground to interfere. The writ petition having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed this appeal. 3. At the hearing of the appeal the appellant brought to our notice the minutes of the Selection Committee constituted for selecting full-time M.B.A. students, held at the Department of Management Studies on 21.7.197. This Committee consisted of three persons, Respondent No. 2. who is the Head of the Department of Manager. Studies was a Member of the said Committee. 'The Committee found that marks of certain candidates were erased and changed by someone other that the respective Committee Members. the mark were earlier given by the committee Members. The minutes disclosed the name and the hall ticket numbers of the respective students as well as the marks allotted to them and the changed marks. The shocking irregularity of using eraser and change of marks in respect of certain students is referred to in paragraph 2 of the report of the Committee, which reads as follows: In the light of the observed changes in the interview marks, the Committee after discussing with Professor and Head of the Department of Management Studies, decided to invite Mr. D.V. Suresh Kumar, Reader, Management Studies. Accordingly, Mr. Suresh Kumar was requested to appear before the Committee and the Committee understood that Mr. D.V. Suresh Kumar, Reader, Management Studies. Accordingly, Mr. Suresh Kumar was requested to appear before the Committee and the Committee understood that Mr. D.V. Suresh Kumar had erased and changed the marks. During our discussion it was brought to the notice of the Committee that these changes were made by Mr. D.V. Suresh Kumar with the knowledge of the Head of the Department. This statement was not ratified by the Head of the Department. However, Mr. D.V. Suresh Kumar had accepted the corrections and was willing to change the marks back to the original positions. In paragraph 6 of the report a reference was mad to the effect "(1948) in the register showing the rank order has been erased and changed." In paragraph 7 it observed follows: The committee has accidentally got bold of a record containing the list of candidates, tentatively worked out for identifying the probable candidates. The Committee has noticed that this exercise was done independently, probably before the committee met on 17.7.1979 for selection of candidates. Mr. D.V. Suresh Kumar has agreed that he has worked out the list (with the knowledge of the professor). The Committee has taken the above document and resolved that this document be handed over to the Vice-Chancellor immediately. As we took the view that these minutes referred specifically to respondents 2 and 3 and the minutes also referred to the fact that respondent No. 3 claimed responsibility for erasing and change of marks, with the knowledge of the Head of the Department, this was pre-eminently a fit case in which respondents 2 and 3 should be called upon to file affidavits. Surprisingly, both, the respondents filed a joint affidavit and denied that the marks allotted to the candidates had been changed either by respondent No. 3 or that respondent No. 2 had knowledge of such change. Lapse of time was pleaded in justification of the difficulty in recalling precisely as to what took place in the year 1979. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit of respondents 2 and 3 it was stated as follows: At this distance of time, we are unable to recall precisely as to what took place in the year 1979. Lapse of time was pleaded in justification of the difficulty in recalling precisely as to what took place in the year 1979. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit of respondents 2 and 3 it was stated as follows: At this distance of time, we are unable to recall precisely as to what took place in the year 1979. But the point to be emphasised is assuming that certain defects and discrepancies had been noticed in the in process which is far different from saying that any tampering with the marks had been made, the whole matter was placed before the then Vice-Chancellor, who, after acquainting himself with the entire factual position, had decided that no action was called for. Long meritorious service of 27 years and 17 years has been placed and it was suggested that even if there was some irregularity which took place in the year 1979 that cannot be pressed into service to cast a stigma on their meritorious career in the University. It was pleaded that no motive whatsoever had been attributed to either of the two respondents even with reference to the incident in the year 1979 and that they had been functioning even thereafter without any grievance from any quarter and this would be clear from the fact that no allegation except in respect of the year 1979 has been made. 4. We find it hard to believe that where a Committee appointed by the University has gone into the question of erasure and change of marks by two professors of the University, the professors concerned would forget about this fact within a short period of five or six years. An affidavit also came to be filed on behalf of the University more or less on the same lines as the affidavit of respondents 2 and 3, The Registrar, who filed the affidavit, took shelter under the fact that he was not the Registrar of the University in (979. He states thus: ...I caused a search to be made of the relevant records in the University, but we were not able to come across any record either with reference to the alleged complaints or the proceedings or minutes of the Committee referred to in paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (1) to (7) of the affidavit of the petitioner. He states thus: ...I caused a search to be made of the relevant records in the University, but we were not able to come across any record either with reference to the alleged complaints or the proceedings or minutes of the Committee referred to in paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (1) to (7) of the affidavit of the petitioner. The plea of absence of knowledge of records having been put forward as a justification for neither admitting nor denying the minutes of the Selection Committee, we directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the minutes of the Selection Committee a copy of which was filed along with the petition. The learned Counsel then produced a Xerox copy of the original minutes of the Selection Committee. This Xerox copy bore the signature of respondent No. 2. We had no reason to believe that the minutes were abducted and since all the respondents disclaimed any knowledge of such minutes, we made an order on 4.9.1985 by Which we directed respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit with regard to the Xerox copy which was shown to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University and directed it to be kept in a sealed cover. We also directed that these minutes will be made available to the Counsel for the respondents whenever they desire to see them to enable them to swear an affidavit with regard to the contents of the minutes. We made it very clear in that order that we were making a direction in view of the peculiar stand taken by the University that non-such minutes are available in the records of the University. However, since none of the students has alleged anything regarding the selection for the year 1985-86 course, we vacated the interim stay of the publication of the results for admission to the M.B.A. Course. Respondent No. 2 has now filed an affidavit as directed by us. It is true that we directed only respondent No. 2 to file on affidavit. but even after the minutes were product in count neither the University nor respondent No. 3. has found it necessary to say anything about the minutes whiled expressly controlled an admission by respondent no 3. that he has erased the marks of certain candidates. It is true that we directed only respondent No. 2 to file on affidavit. but even after the minutes were product in count neither the University nor respondent No. 3. has found it necessary to say anything about the minutes whiled expressly controlled an admission by respondent no 3. that he has erased the marks of certain candidates. It is rather unfortunate that respondent No. 2 should have thought it fit to take a stand in the affidavit that the lapses which are referred to in the minutes of the Committee and to which he himself is a signatory, must have inadvertently crept in. The following sentence from his affidavit indicates this stand. During the process the three of us came across certain lapses which could have inadvertently crept in due to the enormity of the work involved and the same were rectified, minuted and signed. The minutes bore the signature of respondent No. 2. They contained an admission of respondent No. 3 under his (Respondent No. 2's) signature that the changes were made by respondent No. 3 with the knowledge of the Head of the Department, though respondent No. 2 disclaimed all knowledge even in the minutes. In the face of this record under the signature of respondent No. 2, it is rather surprising that he should have now though it fit to justify the conduct of respondent No. 3 by styling it as inadvertent when the record itself shows that in cases of all candidates mentioned in the minutes, the marks have been deliberately altered either to increase the total number of marks or to reduce the total number of marks. 5. Neither respondent No. 3 nor his counsel are present today. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University has contended that the petitioner is a busy body being a correspondent to few newspapers and we should not really entertain any grievance in respect of the Selection Committee for the academic year 1985-86 when none of the students has made any grievance of either the selection or denial of admission to anyone. We pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the selection itself has not been challenged by any student, there was no question of grant of any relief in this appeal to any particular person. We pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the selection itself has not been challenged by any student, there was no question of grant of any relief in this appeal to any particular person. He however insisted relying on the observation of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kasia v. Khalid Nujio that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, calibre and qualification and minimum that was necessary to be done in the instant case was that respondents 2 and 3 should be prevented from sitting as Members of any Selection Committee till they are cleared. In the case cited supra pointing out the inadequacy of the oral interview test, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission to colleges or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview, calibre and qualification. (Underlining is ours) The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that though no effective relief was possible to be given in the instant appeal, some enquiry was required to be made with regard to the conduct of respondents 2 and 3 and until such time as an enquiry is not made or they are not cleared of their charges contained in the minutes of the meeting, they should be prohibited from sitting as Members of the Selection Committee. It was sought to be pointed out on behalf of respondent 1 and 2 that the whole procedure with regard to the selection of candidates is now computerized and no personal element is involved in the selection or valuation of papers and the fear which is expressed that marks will be manipulated even hereafter by respondents 2 and 3 was, therefore, wholly baseless. 7. It is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that till such time as a proper enquiry is not made in the conduct of respondents 2 and 3, they should be debarred from functioning as Members of any Selection Committee in future. 7. It is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that till such time as a proper enquiry is not made in the conduct of respondents 2 and 3, they should be debarred from functioning as Members of any Selection Committee in future. Such an action would be in the nature of a penal action against them which this Court is not entitled to take in these proceedings. 8. There is an averment made by the appellant that the subject matter of the minutes were brought to the notice of the then Governor who had sent a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for proper action, but no action has been taken. With regard to this averment the affidavit filed on behalf of the University by the Registrar is silent. The affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 does not admit that any reference was made to the Vice-Chancellor, but they have merely stated that assuming that certain defects and discrepancies had been noticed in the in process which, according to them, was far different from saying that any tampering with the marks had been made, the whole matter was placed before the then Vice-Chancellor, who, after acquainting himself with the entire factual position, had decided that no action was called for. We are unable to ascertain whether these statements are correct. In these circumstances, when an allegation with regard to the tampering of marks of certain candidates has been brought to the notice of this Court, notwithstanding the fact that this had taken place in the year 1979, in the interests of the purity of the academic atmosphere of the University and equally in the interests of the fair name and reputation of the Madras University, we think the best course for us would be to send a copy of this judgment to the Chancellor along with a copy of the minutes which are kept in the sealed envelope for such action as the Chancellor may deem fit to take in this case. 9. Subject to the above observations the appeal is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment along with the sealed envelope should be sent to the Chancellor of the Madras University. 9. Subject to the above observations the appeal is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment along with the sealed envelope should be sent to the Chancellor of the Madras University. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has given his consent for sending the copy of the minutes in the sealed envelope to the Chancellor.