Honble JHA, CJ.–This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.10.2004 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4062/2004 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. (2). The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking direction on the respondent Jai Narayan Vyas University (in short, the University) to cancel the result of viva voce of the appellant and other students in M.A. (Final) Examination, videography of the viva voce so that it may be subjected to re-evaluation like answer-books. The appellant also sought direction to fix criteria for awarding marks in the viva. (3). The case of the appellant is that in the M.A. (Previous) Examination in English in 2003, he secured 246 marks out of 400 i.e. 61.50%. He expected gold medal in the final examination on the basis of his marks in the M.A. (Previous) Examination. Shri Man Mohan Gehlot, Head of the English Department however wanted to oblige two students, namely, Niva Bhandari who happened to be daughter of a colleague being Head of the Philosophy Department, and Priyanka Chouhan and with that in view, he got awarded lower marks in the viva paper by Shri V.P. Paliwal, Head of the Department of S.S. College, Mukangarh, Jaipur who acted as external member of the Board. as a result of his maneuvering, the appellant was awarded only 48 marks as against 75 to Niva Bhandari and 77 marks to Priyanka Chouhan. Niva Bhandari had 243 marks while Priyanka Chouhan had secured 237 marks out of 400 in the M.A. (Previous) Examination. (4). The entire grievance of the appellant is founded on the assumption that the viva voce marks has co-related with the written marks. The University has submitted a comparative statement of the marks secured by some of the students in M.A. (Previous) and M.A. (Final) Examinations including viva voce and it would be useful to reproduce the same as under:- S.No. Roll No. Percentage of marks Marks of Viva Voce Previous Final 1. 01 59.75% 59.50% 69 2. 03 46% 48.50% 60 3. 04 57% 57.75% 50 4. 08 57.25% 61.75% 49 5. 11 61.50% 61.50% 48 6. 21 46.75% 52.75% 63 7. 44 48.75% 48.25% 45 8. 50 46.25% 51.75% 65 9. 52 45.25% 33.50% 65 10. 88 48% 45.50% 39 11. 92 60.75% 61.50% 75 12. 95 59.25% 68% 77 13. 108 41.25% 35.50% 67 14. 110 60% 63.75% 55 15. 04 57% 57.75% 50 4. 08 57.25% 61.75% 49 5. 11 61.50% 61.50% 48 6. 21 46.75% 52.75% 63 7. 44 48.75% 48.25% 45 8. 50 46.25% 51.75% 65 9. 52 45.25% 33.50% 65 10. 88 48% 45.50% 39 11. 92 60.75% 61.50% 75 12. 95 59.25% 68% 77 13. 108 41.25% 35.50% 67 14. 110 60% 63.75% 55 15. 123 42.25% 44% 60 16. 157 52.50% 61.75% 43 17. 176 49.25% 54.75% 43 18. 179 36% 37.75% 36 19. 203 58.50% 60.50% 50 (5). The names of the candidates have not been disclosed. We were however, told that the marks shown against serial No.5, roll No.11 are those of the appellant while marks of Niva Bhandari and Priyanka Chouhan have been mentioned against serial nos.11 (roll no.92) and 12 (roll no.95) respectively. It would appear that while the appellant secured 61.50% marks in Previous as well as Final Examinations, Niva Bhandari secured 60.75% and 61.50% and Priyanka Chouhan secured 59.25% and 68% marks respectively in the two examinations. The appellant had secured higher marks in the Previous Examination, but Niva Bhandari secured same marks as the appellant and Priyanka Chouhan secured higher marks, in fact the highest, in the final examination. (6). What is more relevant for the purpose of this case is that besides the appellant who was awarded 48 marks in the viva voce, candidate at serial No.16 who had secured 61.75 marks i.e. more than the appellant in the theory papers was awarded only 43 marks in the viva i.e. less than the appellant. Similarly, candidate at Serial No.19 secured 60.50% marks i.e. same as the appellant in the theory papers was awarded only 50 marks in the viva voce. On the other hand, candidate at Serial No.13 secured only 35.50% marks in the theory papers but was awarded 67 marks which was the fourth highest in the list. Similarly, the candidate at Serial No.8 secured 51.75% marks but was awarded 65 marks in the viva voce. These are some of the illustrations picked up from the above statement. (7). It is manifest from the above statistics that the viva marks did not have any direct co-relation with the written marks and therefore, the plea of the appellant that he was awarded lower marks in the viva with an oblique motive does not appear to have any foundation. (7). It is manifest from the above statistics that the viva marks did not have any direct co-relation with the written marks and therefore, the plea of the appellant that he was awarded lower marks in the viva with an oblique motive does not appear to have any foundation. It goes without saying that while a student may secure good marks in the theory papers, he may not be awarded equally good marks in the viva and vice-versa. (8). Although no argument was advanced on the efficacy of the viva voce test it is apposite to notice the following observations in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 :- "It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantage over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidates initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decisions, ability to lead intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview test, much depending on the constitution of the interview board." (9). These observations were made in the context of selection for appointment to public service on the basis of composite test comprising of written test and the viva voce and all the factors catalogued in the above passage may not be taken into consideration while assessing the candidates performance in the viva voce at the level of the University Examination. However, there cannot be two opinions that the object of written test and viva voce test are different and it is not necessary that a candidate securing good marks in written papers would secure equally good marks in the viva. (10). As observed in Lila Dhar case, while written examination has certain distinct advantage over the interview test, there are no written tests which can truly evaluate a candidates initiative, resourcefulness, capacity for clear and logical presentations, effectiveness in discussion etc. These qualities, as noted by the Apex Court, "may be evaluated, perhaps, with some degree of error, by an interview test". (11). These qualities, as noted by the Apex Court, "may be evaluated, perhaps, with some degree of error, by an interview test". (11). A somewhat similar question as in this case arose in Jasvinder Singh vs. State of J&K, (2003) 2 SCC 132 . A Single Judge of High Court had upheld the grievance of the unsuccessful candidate passed on the alleged disparity between written marks and the viva voce marks, and the contention that lower marks were awarded in the viva voce for extraneous consideration was accepted. The Division Bench of the Court reserved the decision. Upholding the decision of the Division Bench the Supreme Court observed as under: "8. The learned Single Judge also seems to have been very much carried away by few instances noticed by him as to the award of higher percentage of marks in viva voce to those who got lower marks in the written test as compared to some who scored higher marks in the written examination but could not get as much higher marks in viva voce. Picking up a negligible few instances cannot provide the basis for either striking down the method of selection or the selections ultimately made. There is no guarantee that a person who fared well in the written test will or should be presumed to have fared well in the viva voce test also and the expert opinion about as well as experience in viva voce does not lend credence to any such general assumptions, in all circumstances and for all eventualities. That apart, he variation of written test marks of those who were found to have been awarded higher marks in viva voce vis-a-vis those who secured higher marks in the written test but not so in the viva voce cannot be said to be so much (varying from five marks and at any rate below even 10) as to warrant any proof of inherent vice in the very system of selection or the actual selection in the case........" (12). In Vijay Syal vs. State of Punjab (2003) 9 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court observed that the marks awarded by the Interview Committee are not subject to judicial review unless mala fides or extraneous considerations are alleged. (13). In Vijay Syal vs. State of Punjab (2003) 9 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court observed that the marks awarded by the Interview Committee are not subject to judicial review unless mala fides or extraneous considerations are alleged. (13). True it is that in the instant case there is a general allegation of mala fide against the Head of the Department Shri Man Mohan Gehlot but there is no material to suggest that the marks were awarded by members of the Interview board for extraneous considerations. As is sometimes said, it is easy to allege mala fide but difficult to prove it. (14). Another aspect of the matter is that even if there was any substance in the allegation of unfair evaluation so as to cause undue benefit to Niva Bhandari and Priyanka Chouhan by deliberately awarding lower marks to the appellant and higher marks to them, there can be no justification to hold fresh viva voce in respect of these three persons alone. And in absence of any allegation, muchless proof of large scale unfair practice concerning other candidates, the result of the viva voce cannot be cancelled as whole. Since there cannot be part cancellation, and it may not be proper to cancel the whole, we do not think it is possible to accept the prayer of the appellant. (15). All said and done, the examination was held in 2004 and much water has flown since then. Any interference with the result of the examination at this stage would result in unsettling something which stands settled. (16). In the above premises, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.