JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S. Gunabanta, Advocate appearing for the petitioners; Shri Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri A. Viscount, Government Advocate, Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. Rommel, Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Shri M. Hemchandra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 06-05-2015 issued by the State Government and notification dated 08-05-2015 issued by the Director of Health Services, Manipur. 3.1 According to the petitioners, they are all working as Senior Residents/Tutors/Demonstrators at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences (JNIMS), established in the year 2007, run and managed by the JNIMS Society registered under the provisions of the Manipur Society Registration Act bearing Regd. No. 312/M/SR/2007 dated 10-12-2007. 3.2 Consequent upon the grant of permission by the Medical Council of India (MCI) vide its letter dated 14-07-2010, the MBBS Courses are being conducted in JNIMS, Manipur since 2010 - 2011 academic session with students nominated by the State Government through the Common Competitive Entrance Examination conducted at the State level and students from the AIPMT pool. 3.3 With the completion of five years of the institute and the students of first batch of MBBS course are likely to pass out in the year 2016, the authority of the JNIMS approached the Government of India for grant of permission to start Post Graduate course from the academic session 2015 - 2016. The Government of India vide its letter dated 27-02-2015 addressed to the Principal/Dean, JNIMS has granted permission for starting PG course in JNIMS, Manipur in respect of the following disciplines - 3.4 To the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the State Government issued an order dated 06-05-2015 prescribing the procedure for admission to Post Graduate course in JNIMS, Manipur wherein it is prescribed as under :-- "(a) To select candidates for PG admission in JNIMS based on merit list in All India PG Medical Entrance Examination, 2015 (b) To reserve 50% of the seats for the in-service candidates after leaving the Central Pool. In-service candidates who served in remote and difficult areas as defined by the State Government in its order No. 4/2/2012-M(PG) dated 08-02-2013, will get 10% for each year of service in remote and difficult areas subject to a maximum of 30% over the marks obtained in the Entrance Examination. (c) To treat the regular employees of JNIMS also as in-service candidates for the purpose of selection of candidates for PG studies in JNIMS...... " The Director of Health Services, Manipur issued a notification dated 08-05-2015 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for pursuing PG course in JNIMS, Manipur and fixed counselling for admission on 25-05-2015 from 10.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. at Medical Board Room, Directorate of Health Services, Lamphelpat. 4. It is submitted by Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the State Government and the Director of Health Services, Manipur have no authority to issue the impugned order and notification and as per bye-laws, it is the authorities of the JNIMS, Manipur only which have the power to manage the affairs of the JNIMS including the matters of academic, admission, etc. It is further submitted that the petitioners being the staff of the JNIMS, their legitimate rights ought to have been considered by giving institutional preference and moreover, since the petitioners were not able to appear in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015 in view of the Memorandum dated 15-11-2014 issued by the Director, JNIMS grating no leave of any kind inclusive of appearing for such examination, the State Government ought to have conducted a test for selection of candidates for admission to PG course in JNIMS. 5. The writ petition is hotly contested by the respondents by filing their respective affidavits. The stand of the State Government is that the JNIMS, Manipur is a State owned Medical College and the JNIMS Society is constituted to manage the day to day affairs of the JNIMS and the State Government has inherent power under Regulation 34 of the bye-laws. There is no specific provision that for Post-Graduate course, the selection of the candidates is to be done by the JNIMS. The State Cabinet in its meeting held on 02-04-2015 has decided to select candidates for post graduate admission in JNIMS, Manipur based on merit list of All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015. There is no specific provision that for Post-Graduate course, the selection of the candidates is to be done by the JNIMS. The State Cabinet in its meeting held on 02-04-2015 has decided to select candidates for post graduate admission in JNIMS, Manipur based on merit list of All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015. Since the petitioners have not appeared in the said examination, they are not eligible for consideration and they have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order/notification. The affidavit filed on behalf of the JNIMS is in line with that of the State Government wherein it is stated that the JNIMS is a State Government College created pursuant to the decision of the State Cabinet. In the absence of a clear-cut mechanism for admission procedure for PG course, the State Government has helped the JNIMS by issuing the impugned order/notification prescribing procedure for admission pursuant to its letter dated 31-03-2015 requesting the State Government to frame suitable rules for selection of candidates for admission to PG course. The selection of the candidates for admission is outside the academic activity of the JNIMS and there is no provision for giving priority or preference to the in-service staff of the JNIMS. An affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No. 2 contending inter-alia that the admission process has to be in conformity with the guidelines of the Government of India and the MCI and on receipt of the letter dated 27-02-2015 from the Government of India, the Director, JNIMS addressed a letter dated 31-03-2015 to the State Government requesting it to frame a suitable rule and accordingly, after a cabinet decision taken in a meeting held on 02-04-2015, the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 was issued prescribing the method of examination to be adopted for admission to PG course based on merit list of AIPGMEE. It is also stated that out of 23 petitioners, 8 petitioners had appeared in the said AIPGMEE and this fact has been concealed in the writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioners have no right to be given priority or preference in violation of existing rules and regulations. 6. From the submissions made and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the following issues arise for consideration by this court - "a) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the impugned order/notification? 6. From the submissions made and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the following issues arise for consideration by this court - "a) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the impugned order/notification? b) Whether, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have concealed material facts, the present petition is liable to be dismissed or not? c) Whether the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties? d) Whether the State government is competent to issue the impugned order/notification?" 7. It is submitted jointly by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that since the petitioners have not appeared in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015, they have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order/notification, on the basis of which the candidates are to be selected for admission to PG course. This court is unable to accept this contention for the reason that they are working as Senior Residents/Tutors/Demonstrators in JNIMS, Manipur who are eligible for consideration and the candidates are to be selected for admission to PG course in JNIMS. According to them, the impugned order and notification have denied their legitimate right to be considered for admission to PG course because it had provided that the selection of candidates for admission to PG course would be based on merit list of AIPGMEE and if they knew about it in advance, all of them could have appeared in the AIPGMEE. 8. Shri N. Ibotombi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has vehemently submitted that in the impugned order dated 06-05-2015, it has been specifically prescribed that the candidates shall be selected for admission to PG course in JNIMS based on the merit list of All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015 and in the event of the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 being quashed by this court, those persons whose names are in the said merit list would be affected and therefore, they are necessary parties. Since they have not been arrayed as parties in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma & ors. v. State of UP & ors. Since they have not been arrayed as parties in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma & ors. v. State of UP & ors. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251 and K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 . This court is unable to accept this contention also because in the present writ petition, the said merit list of AIPGMEE is not being challenged nor is the process of the said examination being challenged and only the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 is being challenged on the ground that the State government is not competent to issue the same and therefore, those in the said merit list are not necessary parties. Moreover, the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. The other contention which all the learned counsels appearing for the respondents including the learned Advocate General, Manipur and Shri M. Hemchandra have emphasised is that since the petitioners have not come before this court with clean hands, the present petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. According to them, the petitioners in para 15 of their writ petition have stated that they were unable to appear in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015 in view of the Memorandum dated 15-11-2014 issued by the Director, JNIMS and these averments are absolutely incorrect because out of the 23 petitioners, 8 (eight) are found to have appeared in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015 and they have deliberately made the said statement in order to obtain interim order from this court. To substantiate their contention, they have relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 , Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India & ors. reported in (2011) 6 SCC 145 and A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nadhavana Sangam reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430 . reported in (2011) 6 SCC 145 and A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nadhavana Sangam reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430 . On perusal of the averments made by the petitioners in para 15 of their writ petition which are specifically rebutted by the respondent No. 1 in its additional affidavit, it is indubitably clear that the petitioners have made false statement and on this ground alone, the writ petition can be dismissed but since the learned counsels appearing for the parties have advanced their arguments on the main issue which is very important in the present context, this court proposes to decide the case on merit also. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsels in respect of the main issue, it is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the bye-laws of the JNIMS, Manipur. The affairs of the JNIMS are in fact governed by the Bye-Laws called the Regulation of the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Manipur. The Governing Council is the highest authority. The powers and functions of the appropriate authorities are prescribed in the said Regulations and the relevant Regulations are as under:-- "5. Powers and functions of the Governing Council: 1. The Governing Council shall be the highest authority empowered to take all measures necessary for attainment of the objective's specified in the Memorandum of the Society. 2. In particular, the Council shall carry out/exercise the following functions/powers: a) To consider and approve the scientific, academic and technical programmes of the Institute; b) To consider, approve and adopt the annual budget. c) To take decisions on any academic and administrative matter that may be referred to it by the Director or the Executive Committee and other bodies of the Institute. d) To undertake any other activities that are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Institute or needed for the efficient management of the Institute. e) To set up such committees, working groups or boards and create and fill up such post as it may consider necessary from time to time for the proper management of the Institute. 6. d) To undertake any other activities that are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Institute or needed for the efficient management of the Institute. e) To set up such committees, working groups or boards and create and fill up such post as it may consider necessary from time to time for the proper management of the Institute. 6. Without prejudice to the generality of the above power, the Governing Council shall have power: a) To make, alter and revive the Regulations; b) To acquire, hold and dispose of property, movable or immovable and to administer all assets; c) To delegate by specific resolution any of its powers to any person or persons, posts, committees, boards or other bodies composed wholly or partly or to its own member; d) To organize, establish, carry on and maintain/ dissolve Working Centre for training, research, consultation and any other work in furtherance of the objectives of the Institute in any part of India. 8. Executive Committee: I. There shall be an Executive Committee which shall consist of not more than members and shall be constituted from amongst the Members of the Governing Council. The Executive Committee shall exercise such powers and discharge duties as the Governing Council may confer or delegate to it. II. The term of office of the Members of the Executive Committee shall be co-terminate with that of the Members of the Governing Council. III. The following shall be the Members of the Executive Committee: IV. A casual vacancy in the Executive Committee shall be filled-up by the Governing Council. 34. The Institute shall carry out such direction as may be issued to it from time to time by the Government of Manipur for efficient administration of the Institute." Technically, the JNIMS, Manipur is being run and managed by the JNIMS Society registered under the provisions of the Manipur Society Registration Act and it ought to act in accordance with its bye laws. Being a registered society, it cannot be equated with the State Government and being a legal entity, it may sue or be sued through its Director. 11. Being a registered society, it cannot be equated with the State Government and being a legal entity, it may sue or be sued through its Director. 11. On the question whether JNIMS, Manipur is as independent as it ought to be like other societies registered under the Act and of power and competence of the State Government in respect of the JNIMS, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia & ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors. reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 are relevant: "In the early days when the Government had limited functions, it could operate effectively through natural persons constituting its civil service and they were found adequate to discharge Governmental functions which were of traditional vintage. But as the tasks of the Government multiplied with the advent of the welfare State, it began to be increasingly felt that the framework of civil service was not sufficient to handle the new tasks which were often specialised and highly technical in character and which called for flexibility of approach and quick decision making. The inadequacy of the civil service to deal with these new problems came to be realised and it became necessary to forge a new instrumentality or administrative device for handling these new problems. It was in these circumstances and with a view to supplying this administrative need that the corporation came into being as the third arm of the Government and over the years it has been increasingly utilised by the Government for setting up and running public enterprises and carrying out other public functions. Today with increasing assumption by the Government of commercial ventures and economic projects, the corporation has become an effective legal contrivance in the hands of the Government for carrying out its activities, for it is found that this legal facility of corporate instrument provides considerable flexibility and elasticity and facilitates proper and efficient management with professional skills and on business principles and it is blissfully free from "departmental rigidity, slow motion procedure and hierarchy of officers". The Government in many of its commercial ventures and public enterprises is resorting to more and more frequently to this resourceful legal contrivance of a corporation because it has many practical advantages and at the same time does not involve the slightest diminution in its ownership and control of the undertaking. The Government in many of its commercial ventures and public enterprises is resorting to more and more frequently to this resourceful legal contrivance of a corporation because it has many practical advantages and at the same time does not involve the slightest diminution in its ownership and control of the undertaking. In such cases "the true owner is the State, the real operator is the State and the effective controllerate is the State and accountability for its actions to the community and to Parliament is of the State." It is undoubtedly true that the corporation is a distinct juristic entity with a corporate structure of its own and it carries on its functions on business principles with a certain amount of autonomy which is necessary as well as useful from the point of view of effective business management, but behind the formal ownership which is cast in the corporate mould, the reality is very much the deeply pervasive presence of the Government. It is really the Government which acts through the instrumentality or agency of the corporation and the juristic veil of corporate personality worn for the purpose of convenience of management and administration cannot be allowed to obliterate the true nature of the reality behind which is the Government." Similarly, in the case of R.D. Shettey v. International Airport Authority of India reported (1979) 3 SCC 489 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "A corporation may be created in one of two ways. It may be either established by statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act, 1956 or the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Where a corporation is wholly controlled by Government not only in its policy-making but also in carrying out the functions entrusted to it by the law establishing it or by the charter of its incorporation, there can be no doubt that it would be an instrumentality or agency of Government. Where a corporation is wholly controlled by Government not only in its policy-making but also in carrying out the functions entrusted to it by the law establishing it or by the charter of its incorporation, there can be no doubt that it would be an instrumentality or agency of Government. But ordinarily where a corporation is established by statute, it is autonomous in its working, subject only to a provision, often times made, that it shall be bound by any directions that may be issued from time to time by Government in respect of policy matters." It is not in dispute that the JNIMS, Manipur is established by the State Government pursuant to a decision taken by the State Cabinet and even the bye-laws thereof were made by the Governing Council with the sanction of the State Government and any amendment under the Regulation 26 of bye-laws be made with the prior approval of the State Government. Almost all the authorities mentioned in the bye-laws comprise of the government functionaries/officials of the State Government. Funds are provided by the State Government and the annual budget shall also be submitted to it. Regulation 32 provides that the JNIMS shall prepare for every year a report which shall be placed before the State Assembly. Regulation 35 provides that the JNIMS shall furnish to the State Government such reports, returns and information as the State Government may require from time to time. In addition to the bye-laws, all the rules applicable to the employees of the State Government have been made applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees of the JNIMS, Manipur including rules relating to payment of pension which are not available to the members of other ordinary societies. Lastly, Regulation 34 provides that the JNIMS shall carry out such direction as may be issued to it from time to time by the Government of Manipur for efficient administration of the Institute. From the perusal of the provisions of the bye-laws in totality and keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, the intent of the State Government is clear that the JNIMS, Manipur is established not to be run and managed directly by the State Government through its Health Department but to be run and managed by the State Government through its agencies. In other words, the JNIMS, Manipur is independent in its working subject to the provision of Regulation 34 of the bye-laws which provides that it shall be bound by any direction that may be issued from time to time by the State Government for efficient administration of the Institute. The terms "administration of Institute" used in Regulation 34 of the bye-laws are very wide and would include within its ambit the power of admission also. The term 'admission' will in turn include the process of selection of candidates for admission. A medical college or any other college as the case may be without the power of admission is unthinkable and unheard of. It is a different matter if the task of selection of candidates for admission as a policy decision of the State Government/Government of India in a given case or by way of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is entrusted to another agency. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the bye-laws, this court is of the view that the State Government is competent to issue directions in matters of policy decision. 12. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 issued by the State Government, it appears that it has something to do with matters of policy when it provides procedure for admission to PG course except para 3(a) which will be dealt with later. The Government of India vide its letter dated 27-02-2015 has granted permission, for the first time, to start PG course in JNIMS, Manipur. The Director, JNIMS vide its letter dated 31-03-2015, under the impression that there is no specific provision under the bye-laws for admission, has requested the State Government to frame procedure for admission which the State Government did it by issuing the impugned order. There is nothing wrong in it in view of the observation of this court above that the State Government is competent to issue directions in policy matters. Moreover, when the JNIMS itself has no any problem to the State Government taking decisions in respect of its affairs, no one can have any grievance to it. Thus, the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 is valid to that extent. Moreover, when the JNIMS itself has no any problem to the State Government taking decisions in respect of its affairs, no one can have any grievance to it. Thus, the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 is valid to that extent. An alternative submission is made by Shri H.S Paonam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 is bad and not sustainable in law because the State Government has failed to give institutional preference and to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS & ors. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 428 and Saurabh Chaudri & ors. v. Union of India & ors. reported in (2003) 11 SCC 146 . In this regard, it may be true that institutional preference is permissible but it is a matter of policy and it must be left with the wisdom of the State Government and such preferential treatment cannot be claimed as of right. 13. At this juncture the Regulations of the Medical Council of India are important and are required to be considered in the context of the present writ petition and in particular, Regulation 9(2), the relevant portion of which is as under: "9(2) For determining the 'Academic Merit', the University/institution may adopt the following methodology:-- (a) On the basis of merit determined by a 'competitive Test' conducted by the state government or by the competent authority appointed by the state government or by the University/group of Universities in the same state; or (b) On the basis of merit as determined by a centralised competitive test held at the national level; or (c) On the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examination provided admissions are University wise. Or (d) Combination of (a) and (c)." The provisions of Regulation 9(2) are very clear and unambiguous and it is for the University or the Institution that has to adopt the methodology for selection of candidates. Or (d) Combination of (a) and (c)." The provisions of Regulation 9(2) are very clear and unambiguous and it is for the University or the Institution that has to adopt the methodology for selection of candidates. Only requirement is that before its adoption, there ought to be two merit lists - one determined, under sub-regulation (a), by a competitive test conducted by the State Government or by the competent authority appointed by the State Government or by the University/ group of Universities in the same state and two, determined under sub-regulation (b) by a centralised competitive test held at the national level. The question of merit list under sub-regulation (a) does not arise, in so as the present case is concerned because the State of Manipur has not conducted any competitive test nor has it appointed any authority to conduct such test. The second merit list under sub-regulation (b) which is very much relevant for the present case, is nothing but the merit list prepared based on the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015 which is conducted by the National Board of Examination. As has been stated above, a University or an Institute may adopt the merit list as determined by a centralised competitive test held at the national level under Regulation 9(2)(b) but before adopting it, certain guidelines laid down by the National Board of Examination are to be followed by the States/Universities/Institutions that they will widely publicize and that they will be utilising the result of AIPGMEE, 2015 to fill-up PG seats under their control and no separate competitive examination will be conducted by them for admission to academic year 2015 - 2016 and they must confirm it to the National Board of Examination. 14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the Government of India vide its letter dated 27-02-2015 granted permission for starting PG course from the academic year 2015 - 2016 at JNIMS, Manipur. By the time permission was granted, the result of All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015, which is conducted by the National Board of Examination, had been declared and the result thereof was already known to the State of Manipur at the time of sponsoring candidates for admission to PG course at RIMS, Manipur. By the time permission was granted, the result of All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2015, which is conducted by the National Board of Examination, had been declared and the result thereof was already known to the State of Manipur at the time of sponsoring candidates for admission to PG course at RIMS, Manipur. There was no occasion either for the State of Manipur or for the JNIMS, Manipur to follow the guidelines of the National Board of Examination. Moreover, neither the State Government nor the JNIMS, Manipur had followed the time schedule prescribed by the MCI, as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no material on record to show that either the State government or the JNIMS, Manipur has ever applied to the MCI or the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exemption from adhering to the time schedule. Therefore, while sufficient time was available with the State Government from the day the permission was granted by the Government of India, it could have conducted a test so that all eligible candidates would have got equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection and the present controversy could have been avoided. Having that not being done, it is unfair and unreasonable on the part of the State Government to decide that candidates for admission to PG course at JNIMS, Manipur shall be selected from the merit list of AIPGMEE and therefore, the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 is bad and not sustainable in law to that extent. So far as the notification dated 08-05-2015 is concerned, it has nothing to do with any policy matter and it is a matter of procedure which should be left to be done by the JNIMS in consonance with the Regulation 9(2) of the MCI. In case the State Government keeps getting itself involved in such small matter, the purpose of JNIMS being registered as society with the object of running and managing it will be defeated. If the State Government really intends to do that, it could have kept JNIMS under the direct control of the Health Department as are being done in respect of various Government Colleges like D.M. College of Science; G.P College, etc. If the State Government really intends to do that, it could have kept JNIMS under the direct control of the Health Department as are being done in respect of various Government Colleges like D.M. College of Science; G.P College, etc. Such act of the State Government is unreasonable which may tantamount to interfering with the day to day affairs of the JNIMS and therefore, the said notification dated 08-05-2015 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 15. Although the impugned order dated 06-05-2015 and notification dated 08-05-2015 are liable to be quashed and set aside for the reasons mentioned above and to the extent indicated above, this court is not inclined to interfere with them for the following reasons keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case: "a) To quash the impugned order and notification will not serve any purpose and in the event of their being quashed, the JNIMS, Manipur will lose its PG seats allocated by the Government of India; b) Since the last date for admission to PG course fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is 10-06-2015, either the State Government or the JNIMS, Manipur will have no time at all to start process afresh in case the impugned order and notification are quashed; c) After the impugned order and notification having been quashed by this court, there is no guarantee that the petitioners would get any benefit out of it; d) Even though the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the decision of the State Government vide impugned order that the selection of candidates be based on the merit list of AIPGMEE, the result of which is already known to the State Government, is malafide, there is no material to show that the State Government did it with malafide intention to favour some particular candidates." With the above observations, the writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly and consequently, interim order stands vacated.