Honble SINGH, J.–Admissions in P.G. Courses in Medical Colleges of Rajasthan have been sold in open market in the year 1997. (2). On complaint, the State police has recovered lacs of rupees from the residences and Bank Lockers of Co-ordinator and Examiners connected with the said examination. Not only this huge amount of cash money but also written and unwritten answer-sheets were also recovered from their residences. What sanctity can be given to such an examination. (3). University of Rajasthan conducted a Pre-PG Test (Medical Courses) on 13.4.1997 for various specialities. The result was declared on 24.5.97. (4). A two line letter was sent on 28.5.97 in the name of the Chief Justice, Raj- asthan High Court, signed by Dr. Anurag Dwivedi and few others stating that irregularities have been committed while conducting the examinations. Few candidates not having good academic record have been declared successful for the P.G. Course. They have not only been declared successful but have been placed at the top of the merit list. This letter was treated as Public Interest Litigation. (5). The learned Single Judge issued notice to the Government and directed Mr. K.S. Rathore, Addl. Advocate General, to file a reply to the petition. (6). The matter came up for orders on 28.5.1997. While dealing with the irregularities committed in the Pre-P.G. test, the Court observed that serious irregularities have been committed by the University in conducting the Pre-P.G. test and the enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation. It was also stated that all those candidates who have been declared successful in pursuance of the aforesaid examination, should not be admitted. In view of the fact that the State itself has taken a decision to conduct an enquiry regarding the irregularities, a prima facie case has been made out for issuance of the show cause notice. Specific direction was issued that till further orders of the court, in service candidates who are twenty eight in number as well as all other candidates who have been declared successful in pursuance of the Pre-P.G. test conducted by the University of Rajasthan, shall not be interviewed and no admission shall be given to them in any Medical College of the State of Rajasthan. (7). Subsequently on 25.7.1997 another order was passed observing that it was unfortunate that allegations of irregularities and mal practice were made. (7). Subsequently on 25.7.1997 another order was passed observing that it was unfortunate that allegations of irregularities and mal practice were made. The State Government had directed the Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation to hold an enquiry. The allegations made were prima facie appear to be correct. Direction was issued that successful candidates may be provisionally allowed in the interview of the P.G. Course with an undertaking to be filed by each candidate that in case any irregularity or malpractice is found against them, they will not claim any right or equity for their provisional admission and their admission in P.G. Course may be cancelled by the Court. (8). On the basis of this interim order provisional admissions were given. Agai- nst this order dated 25.7.1997 special appeal No. 1059/97 was filed by Dr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat & Ors. In that special appeal, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 6.8.1997: ``We are of the considered view that 30 students securing the top 30 positions, who have been deprived by the learned Single Judge of pro- visional admission in the P.G. Course, but in whose cases it was observed, inter alia, that in case their original answer sheets could be recovered they would be free to approach this court for further orders, should not have been disallowed admission at the present stage alongwith 370 other candidates. (9). In the same order, it was further observed that the learned Single Judge found that against such top 30 position holders there was prima facie sufficient material of irregularities and mal-practice including replacement of original answer sheets in the Pre-P.G. test and there was also recovery of huge amount of money from some officers who were controlling the examination which satisfied the cons- cious of the court that they were not entitled for provisional admission to P.G. Course. The Bench was of the view that it would not be proper at this stage to cancel the admission of first 30 position holders or eliminate them at the threshold merely on the suspicion that they had their own complicity in the act of manipulation of their marks which was done so by the University officials and the persons conduct ing the examination. Thus, a further direction was issued that they may be provisionally admitted in P.G. Course subject to the choice of the discipline or the subject of their Post Graduate study being decided upon by a Committee of Experts to be formed by the University authorities. (10). This order was passed in spite of the objection raised by the Additional Advocate General that it will affect the last 30 position holders. (11). Though, in the last paragraph of the order it was observed that if it is found that the first thirty rank holders are really guilty of mal-practice or their examination results are liable to be cancelled in accordance with law or the court quashes their selections in any manner whatsoever, they would abide by the decision of the Court and they would not claim any equity as regards their provisional admission and they would give an undertaking for this purpose before this Court. (12). Subsequently, on the application of the State Government some clarification was also made on 8.8.1997 but the same is not relevant for the purpose of decision of this case. (13). Heard learned counsel for the parties. (14). The first question to be decided is whether this letter petition could be treated as a Public Interest Litigation. The law is well settled that a Public Interest Litigation can be filed only if the matter affects a large segment of the society and it is to protect the interest of the down-trodden, socially and economically weak citizens whose legal rights are otherwise affected but they are unable to approach the court for protection of their interests. Whether there was any irregularity on mal- practice in conducting the pre-P.G. test, public at large is not interested or their rights are not going to be affected. Only those candidates who could not get admission were affected. So in no way it could be said to be a Public Interest Litiga- tion and the petition deserves to be rejected only on this ground. (15). Another equally important issue to be considered is whether in the so-called public interest litigation the disputed questions of facts could be gone into by this Court. (16). So in no way it could be said to be a Public Interest Litiga- tion and the petition deserves to be rejected only on this ground. (15). Another equally important issue to be considered is whether in the so-called public interest litigation the disputed questions of facts could be gone into by this Court. (16). The Additional Advocate General has produced before us the report of the Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation wherein it was found that lacs of rupees were recovered from the residences of co-ordinator, examiners and some written and un-written answer-sheets were also recovered. Thus, one thing is clear that examination was not fairly conducted. It is not possible for this court to examine and find out as to who was the candidate responsible for such acts of trying to get admission by paying huge amounts of money. It is the duty of the State Government to find out and do the needful in the matter. (17). The Supreme Court in the case reported in Daljit Singh Dalal vs. Union of India (1), in a very unequivocal terms has held that factual disputes cannot be examined in the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. (18). Following the same principle, a Division Bench of this Court in N.K. Bairwa vs. Sripal Jain & Ors. (2), took the same view. (19). The Calcutta High Court in the case reported in W.B. Board of Examina-tion vs. Jitendra Lal (3), while considering the Public Interest Litigation in a writ petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate in the entrance test for medical & engineering colleges, held that in such matters all the particulars and the basis of the allegations in support of the prayer for issuance of the rules should be made. A mere allegation without any material in support of same will not entitle a person for an order from the Court. The High Court refused to interfere with the matter and rejected the petition as it was not a public interest litigation. (20). Another equally important issue to be considered is whether in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. Junior Doctors Action Commi- ttee vs. B. Sheetal Nandwani (4), wherein it has been said that the provisional admission should not be granted unless special reasons exist. This view was subsequently reiterated in number of other cases. (20). Another equally important issue to be considered is whether in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. Junior Doctors Action Commi- ttee vs. B. Sheetal Nandwani (4), wherein it has been said that the provisional admission should not be granted unless special reasons exist. This view was subsequently reiterated in number of other cases. However, ignoring this view of the Supreme Court, provisional admissions had been granted by interim orders. Though, it was mentioned that it will not give any right to claim admission but in our view that makes no difference. (21). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that interim orders should not have been passed granting provisional admissions we feel no difficulty in recalling the interim orders though some of the students have studied for four months or so. Unless the State Bureau of Investigation found that no irregularity or malpractice was established such admission should not have been permitted. Orders could have been passed directing the Investigating Agency to complete the investigation within a month or so, in matters like such. (22). Since we are dismissing the writ petition mainly on the ground that Public Interest Litigation was not maintainable and disputed question of facts can- not be decided by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will not be proper for us to enter into the merits of the case. (23).If the High Court starts interfering in such matters then every examination or selection would be challenged by the unsuccessful candidates just by making a false allegation and the matter would be left to be enquired into by the High Court. (24). In the instant case it is not possible for this Court to examine the factual dispute as to which candidate used the money power in order to get admission in the medical college but one thing is established that money has played a vital role in this examination. It is for the Authorities concerned to investigate and pass suitable orders. (25). The writ petition and the special appeal are hereby dismissed. All interim orders which have been passed stand automatically vacated. It is for the State Government and the expert body of the University to examine the matter and do the needful in accordance with the law.