Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. Heard Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent herein to investigate the recruitment of Staff Nurse in JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry through independent investigation agency, particularly Central Bureau of Investigation. 3. The petitioner, who is one of the unsuccessful candidates, has filed this Writ Petition contending that the first respondent issued a Notification on 30.3.2013 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for 22 vacancies in the post of Staff Nurse, initially to fill up vacancies available in JIPMER hospital. Subsequently, another Notification was issued on 21.7.2013 increasing the vacant post to 465. The persons who are qualified in Degree or Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery or equivalent from a recognized University/Institution and registered as Nurse & Midwife under Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947/any State Nursing Council, subject to age limitation prescribed in the Notification, are eligible to apply for the said post as per the notification. It was also stated that the persons from anywhere in India can apply. 4. The petitioner has also applied for the said post through online. The mode of selection was written examination, which consists of 100 questions of multiple choices. According to the petitioner, usually the written examination would be held only at Puducherry and for the first time, the examination centres were located at Puducherry, Chennai, Trichy and Trivandrum. 5. The written examination was conducted on 8.9.2013 in the aforesaid examination Centres and provisional selection list was published on 14.9.2013. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that out of 465 selected candidates, 330 candidates selected are from Trivandrum Centres and the rest of 135 candidates were selected from other States including Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Union Territory and the considerable selected candidates belong to Kerala. 6. It is further alleged in the affidavit that there are allegations of malpractice by the Administrative Officer of JIPMER, viz., Mr.Unnikrishnan, who is on deputation. After his assuming office as Administrative Officer in JIPMER, the examination centres were chosen at Trivandrum, where he was also appointed as one of the Examiner. 6. It is further alleged in the affidavit that there are allegations of malpractice by the Administrative Officer of JIPMER, viz., Mr.Unnikrishnan, who is on deputation. After his assuming office as Administrative Officer in JIPMER, the examination centres were chosen at Trivandrum, where he was also appointed as one of the Examiner. It is also averred in the affidavit that he was informed by some of the persons who protested against their non-selection by alleging that in Trivandrum Centre, question paper and key answers were leaked before the commencement of the examination and the candidates were permitted to mass copy in the examination. According to the petitioner, since there were irregularities and malpractices in the selection of Staff Nurse in JIPMER hospital, he prayed for CBI investigation. 7. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the details of total number of candidates at each examination centres and the pass percentage are stated. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, statewise and venuewise list of selected candidates are mentioned, which reads as follows: STATE-WISE AND VENUE WISE LIST OF SELECTED CANDIDATES 8. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that out of 463 vacancies, 159 candidates who appeared in Trivandrum Centres, namely Government Model H.S.S. For Girls Pattoam PO., Trivandrum; Govt. Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kamaleshwaram, Thycaud P.O., Trivandrum; Karthika Thirunal Govt.Girls High School, Manacaud, Thycaud P.O.,Trivandrum, Kerala; Mannam Memorial Residential HSS, Neermangalam, Kaimanom P.O., Trivandrum; NSS College for Women, Neeramangamalam, Kaimanom P.O., Trivandrum; and SMV Govt. Model HSS, Over Bridge, Thycaud, Trivandrum, Kerala, were selected. Therefore, the allegation made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition stating that 330 candidates out of 465 candidates passed were selected from Trivandrum Centre, has no basis. Further, the vague allegations are made against Unnikrishnan, who is not made as a party. 9. The representation submitted by the petitioner before the Ministry of Health and Famil Welfare, Government of New Delhi dated 1.10.2013 is also having the same set of averments as stated in the affidavit. Further, the vague allegations are made against Unnikrishnan, who is not made as a party. 9. The representation submitted by the petitioner before the Ministry of Health and Famil Welfare, Government of New Delhi dated 1.10.2013 is also having the same set of averments as stated in the affidavit. The said averments made in the representation as well as in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition are disproved by the first respondent by filing detailed counter affidavit stating the details of the examination held at Trivandrum Centres in Kerala State and other Centres in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry the number of persons appeared and selected in the examination through the said Centres. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that one other non-selected candidate, namely V.Adinarayanan filed Writ Petition No.27466 of 2013 before this Court and prayed to quash the provisional selection list dated 14.9.2013 and for a direction to JIPMER to conduct a fresh written test and the First Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2013 dismissed the said Writ Petition, after satisfying about the conduct of the examination, wherein also number of candidates selected from Trivandrum Centre were noted as 159 and in paragraph NO.12 of the said judgment, it is held that the allegation of male fide against the persons must be specific and is to be strictly proved and there was no illegality in the selection. 11. If mala fide is alleged, how far the same can be considered by Court was explained by the Apex Court in the decision in Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited vs. R.D.S.Projects Limited and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 200 . In the said case, it is held that vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provide a sound basis for the Court to conduct enquiry into their veracity. Mere allegation or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. 12. Mere allegation or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. 12. In the decision in Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon vs. Irthiza Hussain and others reported in 2010 (14) SCC 564 , it is also held that person against whom mala fide is alleged must be impleaded as a party in the proceedings and in the absence of the said party, the person attributing mala fide must not be allowed to raise such allegation. Further, it is held that allegation of mala fide need proof of high degree. 13. In view of the said factual position as stated in the counter affidavit as well as the judgments above cited, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case to entertain this Writ Petition and to issue direction to the respondents to order CBI investigation in the conduct of selection to Staff Nurses in JIPMER. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.