ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition impugning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, under which it has proceeded to withdraw the candidature of the petitioner and replace it with the 4th respondent, by issuance of allotment Order dated 29.09.2015 as per Annexure-"F" and to declare that the same is without authority of law and unenforceable and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner obtained a Bachelor's Degree of MBBS from Mysore Medical College. Thereafter, she was selected to the Post-Graduate study of M.S. OBG., from JIPMER., Pondicherry between 2011 and 2014. Thereafter, she was appointed as a Senior Resident from May 2014 and worked till 10.01.2015 at the same place. After participating in the entrance examination followed by an interview, she was selected for Fellowship at Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology and has worked as a Fellow in the Department of Gynaec Oncology. While she was working, she applied for the Common Entrance Test for Post-Graduate Courses being conducted by the 2nd respondent for all the Super Specialty Courses in various Autonomous Institutions. The written examination was conducted on 28.06.2015 followed by viva-voce on 23.07.2015. On the basis of her performance in the Entrance Test and viva-voce and in terms of her merit, she was allotted a seat at the 3rd respondent institution for the Super Specialty Course in M.Ch. Gynaec Oncology for the Academic Year 2015-16 and an allotment order dated 28.07.2015 was issued by the 2nd respondent. After such selection, she was relieved from her Fellowship in Gynaec Oncology from the 3rd respondent institution under an Official Memorandum dated 31.07.2015. 3. It is her case that, to her surprise, on 25.08.2015 she received a telephone call from Sri. Dinesh, Deputy Registrar to come and meet him at the University Office on the same day in connection with her Course of study. When she appeared and met the Deputy Registrar, she was informed that the 4th respondent, who was wait-listed as selected candidate - W.L. 1, had filed an RTI application and having got the details of the award of marks in the viva-voce has expressed certain grievances and she was advised that she should voluntarily withdraw from the course of study so as to accommodate the 4th respondent, who was stated to be the daughter of one Sri. Rathan Lal Gupta, a highly placed official in the Central Government. It was informed that they were under some pressure from the Authorities of the Central Government to review the selection and therefore to avoid any complication, she should voluntarily surrender her seat. She was also taken to the Vice-Chancellor's chamber, who also advised her to abide by the request being made by the Deputy Registrar. She pointed out that she was selected on her merit and there was no cause for such action. Thereafter, again she was called on 23.09.2015, informing her over the phone that she was supposed to be present with relevant documents to a meeting to which she is alleged to have been called, under a notice dated 16.09.2015. When she pointed out that she had not received any such notice, she was called to be present on that evening itself. When she arrived at 5.00 p.m., she was handed over a Meeting Notice dated 16.09.2015. She was taken to a hall, where certain officials of the University including the Vice-Chancellor were present. She was asked to make her statement/grievances, if any, against Dr. Renuka Gupta. She pointed out that she had neither made any grievances against the 4th respondent as per the Meeting Notice dated 16.09.2015 nor she is required to submit any objection letter stating the points against Dr. Renuka Gupta. She also pointed out that she was not aware what was happening and she may be properly apprised of the circumstances or the materials that were being examined by the so called Entrance Test Committee. She also asked for making known to her the grievances of Dr. Renuka Gupta and under what provisions such an enquiry is being held. Since she was not in a position to effectively participate, she was unable to present her case against Dr. Renuka Gupta, who apparently had earlier been called before the Committee and had made certain presentation of her grievances. In the absence of knowing what was being examined, she could only perceive from ongoing discussion that Dr. Renuka Gupta had contended that award of 1 marks for publication in International/National [Index] Case Report, Journal either as first or the second Author was erroneous as according to her, it did not qualify for consideration under the said heading. In the absence of knowing what was being examined, she could only perceive from ongoing discussion that Dr. Renuka Gupta had contended that award of 1 marks for publication in International/National [Index] Case Report, Journal either as first or the second Author was erroneous as according to her, it did not qualify for consideration under the said heading. It was being pointed out by yet another member present that the 4th respondent had been wrongly allocated 1 mark under the category of senior residency from any recognized University in the concerned subject as the documents produced by her towards such allocation disclose that she had worked as a senior resident in Acharya Sri Bikshu Government Hospital at New Delhi, which was admittedly not a recognized University and so also her working as a Senior Resident in Deendayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, also could not be taken into account as it was only a Government Hospital and not a recognized University, which was the prescription under the notification for allocation of marks. The petitioner was asked to send a representation if she so desired. Thereafter, she sent a representation addressed to the Vice-Chancellor pointing out that an effort is being made to persuade her to give up her seat to accommodate Dr. Renuka Gupta, and also requesting the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that such enquiry being conducted be closed or afford her a proper opportunity if the Regulations contemplated any such enquiry at such a distant point of time, more so when she was prosecuting her studies for nearly two months. She has also pointed out that no such adjudication was contemplated under any rule of law. That if the 4th respondent was in fact aggrieved, she had to approach a Court of law for redressing her grievances rather than putting pressure on the authorities on account of her connection with certain officials in the Central Government as was being mentioned. Thereafter, without any enquiry and without any further notice, the 2nd respondent communicated the allotment Order dated 29.09.2015, which was received by the petitioner on 30.09.2015 along with an Official Memorandum dated 30.09.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent. Even before the petitioner was issued with any communication referred to above, the 4th respondent was granted admission by receipt of the prescribed fee etc., by virtue of the allotment Order dated 29.09.2015 and the Official Memorandum dated 30.09.2015. Even before the petitioner was issued with any communication referred to above, the 4th respondent was granted admission by receipt of the prescribed fee etc., by virtue of the allotment Order dated 29.09.2015 and the Official Memorandum dated 30.09.2015. Thus, giving an impression that the result was pre-meditated and the alleged exercise carried out on 16.9.2015 was farcical and a drama enacted. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the action of the respondent as wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and lack bona fides. 4. After service of notice, the authorities entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. 5. After setting out the procedure followed both for entrance test and viva-voce, in para 4, respondents 1 and 2 have set-out the total marks secured by the petitioner and the 4th respondent hereunder: Marks in Arpita A (Petitioner) Renuka Gupta (4 th Respondent) Entrance Test 64/90 69/90 Gold Medal etc. 0 0 Publications 2 0 Senior Resident/Fellowship 1 1 Viva Voce 4.5 1 Total 71.5 (Selected) 71 (Wait List – 1) 6. It is submitted that, on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates, the petitioner was selected to undergo the course. After selection of the petitioner on 30.07.2015, the 4th respondent filed an application under the RTI Act, seeking the publications etc., produced by the petitioner and after securing the same on 30.08.2015, filed objections regarding selection of the petitioner particularly, to the award of marks under the head "publications", wherein she has alleged that the publication cited by the petitioner is not a peer-reviewed, indexed article but, only an abstract published in the supplementary edition. Immediately, thereafter, as the petitioner was admitted and was pursuing her studies, with a view to rule out any such mistakes as pointed out in the complaint, which will affect the entire selection process, the Selection Committee decided to call the petitioner so as to clarify the issue. Hence, the Deputy Registrar, who is in-charge of PGET., Dr. Dinesh was instructed to contact the petitioner. Accordingly, Dr. Dinesh telephoned to the petitioner and informed her about the complaint submitted by Dr. Renuka Gupta which the petitioner is making much about. In fact, every candidate has to furnish their mobile number along with their applications so as to enable the respondents to inform them personally in the event of any eventuality, while conducting the selection process. Accordingly, Dr. Dinesh telephoned to the petitioner and informed her about the complaint submitted by Dr. Renuka Gupta which the petitioner is making much about. In fact, every candidate has to furnish their mobile number along with their applications so as to enable the respondents to inform them personally in the event of any eventuality, while conducting the selection process. This practice is in vogue since its inception. Unfortunately, the petitioner is taking advantage of this procedure for hurling baseless allegations against the Vice-Chancellor, which is far from truth. The petitioner, who went through the complainant, has requested to give her an opportunity to have her say. Since the selection to the Super Specialty Course is to be transparent and merit based and in order to ascertain as to whether any of the candidates obtain the seat by making false statements and misleading the Selection Committee, it was decided to issue notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent to substantiate their rival claims. Rule 17 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges [Conduct of Entrance Test and Selection for Post-Graduate Super Specialty Courses] Rules 1991, provides for cancellation of a seat selected by a candidate if the same is obtained by furnishing false and incorrect statement. Hence, the Selection Committee issued a Notice dated 16.09.2015 to all concerned. The notice was sent by courier service and was dispatched on 16.09.2015 to the petitioner, the 4th respondent as well as to the subject expert. This fact has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner by making reckless allegations. On 23.09.2015, the Selection Committee met, the petitioner did not attend the proceedings at the scheduled time. The 4th respondent, who was present reiterated her allegations by producing materials to prove that the publication cited by the petitioner for which marks was awarded is not a peer reviewed article but, only an abstract which was published in the supplement. The Committee waited for the petitioner to present her defence but, she arrived only after the 4th respondent left the place. However, the Selection Committee to give her an opportunity to present her case asked the petitioner to have her say. But, the petitioner refused to substantiate her claim. On the contrary, represented to the Committee that she would respond only after consulting her parents and the guide. But, agreed to the fact that the article cited by her is not peer reviewed. But, the petitioner refused to substantiate her claim. On the contrary, represented to the Committee that she would respond only after consulting her parents and the guide. But, agreed to the fact that the article cited by her is not peer reviewed. As the last date for admission to PG Super Specialty Course was 30.09.2015, the Committee after considering the facts and circumstances presented before it has decided to cancel 1 mark awarded to the petitioner under the head publications. Consequently, her selection was cancelled and the 4th respondent who became the highest obtainer of the marks was selected in place of the petitioner and she was issued the impugned allotment order. 7. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections. In the statement, she has referred to taking the Super Specialty Entrance Test, the marks she has secured in the written examination, the marks she secured in the viva-voce and then her filing an application under the RTI Act and secured the requisite information from the authority. Thereafter, she has stated that she had a telephonic conversation with one M. Dinesh from the PGSSET [Post Graduate Super Specialty Entrance Test] Cell who gave an assurance to respondent No. 4 that a seat shall be kept on hold till a final decision is taken by the Committee. By letter dated 12.08.2015, which was received by her on 22.08.2015, the Public Information Officer of respondent No. 1 furnished details of marks awarded to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 in the interview and also the supporting documents. The said information discloses that the petitioner was awarded a total of 7.5 marks out of 10 and respondent No. 4 was awarded 2 marks out of 10 in the interview. What was even more shocking was that out of 7.5 marks, 2 marks were awarded towards publication and 1 mark was awarded towards completion of Senior Residency/Fellowship for one year. The petitioner had suppressed the material information and misled the Committee during the interview in respect of her publication as well as completion of Senior Residency for minimum 1 year/Fellowship. Then she has referred to various clauses in the brochure and contends that the petitioner had been awarded 2 marks towards Research Articles published and 1 mark for completion of Senior Residency for a minimum duration of 1 year. Then she has referred to various clauses in the brochure and contends that the petitioner had been awarded 2 marks towards Research Articles published and 1 mark for completion of Senior Residency for a minimum duration of 1 year. The petitioner has neither published any Article which entitled her to be given 2 marks nor has she completed a Fellowship Programme for 1 year duration/Senior Residency of minimum 1 year duration to be entitled for an award of 1 mark in this regard. Her grievance was that respondent No. 1 has erroneously awarded 3 marks to the petitioner in the interview. She has set-out in detail the particulars of those publications. She also commented upon the certificate of experience produced by the petitioner. She has referred to receiving a Meeting Notice dated 16.09.2015 on 18.09.2015 from respondent No. 2 calling upon her to attend the meeting which was chaired by the Vice-Chancellor. In the Course of the meeting, she has brought out all her grievances in respect of award of marks to the petitioner and she also supported her claim regarding experience and produced documents at that stage also. She also filed her written submission regarding grievances. Thereafter, she was issued an Allotment Order dated 29.09.2015 informing that she has been selected for M.Ch. Gynaec Oncology in respondent No. 3 and directed her to report on or before 30.09.2015 with all original documents and prescribed fee. She paid the requisite fee and got herself admitted on the same day itself. Therefore, she contends that she has secured more marks than the petitioner and rightly she has been admitted and the allotment letter to the petitioner had been recalled. 8. That apart, all the parties have filed subsequent pleadings running to several pages, which in our view is of no relevance in deciding the dispute between the parties. 9. Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned action of the respondents contended that when the First Committee held a meeting and made the selection on 23.07.2015, thereafter, it become functus officio and under the Scheme/Rule there is no provision for convening a Second Committee to go into the question of correctness of the selection made by the First Committee and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated, allotment letter issued, orders passed are one without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The petitioner has produced more than two publications. According to the Clauses in the brochure, for the first publication one mark and the other mark for any number of publication. Without considering the fact that there was any defect in any of the publications, the reduction of 1 mark on that ground is illegal. In fact, the entire exercise has been done on the basis of the communication produced by the 4th respondent. Therefore, the finding on the basis of such material, which material has not been furnished to the petitioner has vitiated the orders passed by the authorities. Moreover, those publications are produced by the petitioner along with her application, which was scrutinized before she was called for the viva-voce. At the time of interview, it was scrutinized by experts in the field and they had given marks. In the absence of any provision for reviewing the said marks, what the authorities have done is wholly without jurisdiction. As could be seen from the original records, even if one mark is reduced on that account, the petitioner would still have 70.5 marks, whereas the marks secured by the 4th respondent is 70 only. However, original records disclose subsequently, and without any request from the 4th respondent, one mark is added and therefore, he submits that it is a clear case of interpolation/manipulation. The authorities yielded to extraneous influence and the candidate who had indulged in such a manipulation is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court and the Court has to come to the rescue of a meritorious student. 10. Lastly, it was contended that as could be seen from the pleadings, which are not in dispute, it is through telephonic conversation, the petitioner was secured and without making known to her the grievance of the 4th respondent, proceedings appear to have been concluded as pre-arranged and the orders were passed. In fact, they rely on Clause 8 of 2002 Ordinance, which specifically provides for giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter by the Entrance Test Committee. No reasonable opportunity was given. The petitioner was not aware of the grievance of the 4th respondent. She was not given a copy of her written submissions. The entire procedure adopted by the Committee is illegal, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and therefore requires to be set aside. 11. No reasonable opportunity was given. The petitioner was not aware of the grievance of the 4th respondent. She was not given a copy of her written submissions. The entire procedure adopted by the Committee is illegal, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and therefore requires to be set aside. 11. Per contra, Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the authorities submits that on an application received from the 4th respondent, the authorities opened their eyes, issued a notice to the petitioner to appear and have her say regarding the grievances made out by the 4th respondent and when they were satisfied that one of the publications was not peer reviewed publication, they were justified in reducing 1 mark. Further, it is submitted that they had denied 1 mark to the 4th respondent under the heading of experience, which they have made good. Therefore, out of this exercise, it is the 4th respondent, who is more meritorious and therefore, she has been given allotment letter and there is no illegality either in the procedure or in the impugned order passed by the authorities. 12. Sri Ramdas, learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent strongly contended that the publications of the petitioner is not peer reviewed, it is only an abstract. It is not 1 mark, both the marks should have been denied to the petitioner, which has not been done. Similarly, the 4th respondent had the requisite experience. She had been denied 1 mark, which the authorities have rectified after looking into the certificate, which has been produced subsequently and taken number of the marks by awarding 71 marks and not 70 marks and therefore, with a reduction of 1 mark to the petitioner if marks of 70.5 whereas, the 4th respondent has secured 71 marks and she was more meritorious and therefore, the impugned action cannot be found fault with. 13. Coming to the jurisdiction and power of the committee is concerned, they rely on Clause 8 of the Regulations and submits that as the 4th respondent is the aggrieved person, she had every right to make representation to the authority and also to contest the matter before this Court and therefore, he submits that there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the petition requires to be dismissed. 14. 14. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions the point that arise for our consideration is, 'Whether the authorities were justified in withdrawing the allotment orders issued in favour of the petitioners and were justified in issuing an allotment order in favour of the fourth respondent?' 15. The facts are not in dispute. Both the petitioner and the fourth respondent have requisite qualification to participate in common entrance test for post graduate courses. Both of them have written the examination on 28.6.2015. The petitioner has secured 64 marks whereas the fourth respondent has secured 69 marks out of 90 marks. Both of them participated in the viva-voce on 23.7.2015. As could be seen from the original records 'one mark' is earmarked for gold medal/1st rank in U.G. Both of them did not satisfy the said criteria and they were given 0' marks. 'Two marks' is earmarked for publication including case report in international/national (index)/case report journal either as 1st or 2nd author. As fourth respondent did not have such publication to her account, she was given 0' marks whereas the petitioner was given 2' marks. 'One mark' is earmarked for award winning paper presentation in parent/allied subjects at National/International conference conducted by registered/recognized national organization. Both of them did not have any such presentation and therefore, no marks is awarded. Similarly, 'one mark' is earmarked for national/international representation in sports/military service not less than five years/fellowship/senior residency from any recognized university in concerned subject. Fourth respondent was not awarded any marks whereas the petitioner was awarded one mark. For performance in viva voce, fourth respondent was given 'one mark' whereas the petitioner was given 4.5 marks. Thus out of 10 marks, the petitioner secured 7.5 marks whereas the fourth respondent secured 1' mark. In the column meant for grand total, in ink as against the name of Dr. Renuka Guptha-fourth respondent, marks mentioned is 71 whereas in respect of the petitioner the marks mentioned is 71.5. In the last column mentioned for the remarks, as against the petitioner's name it is written in ink as 'selected' whereas, fourth respondent is shown as 'WL-1' and another candidate by name Divya. B is shown as 'WL-2'. It is on the basis of the marks secured, as petitioner stood first she was given the allotment letter. In the last column mentioned for the remarks, as against the petitioner's name it is written in ink as 'selected' whereas, fourth respondent is shown as 'WL-1' and another candidate by name Divya. B is shown as 'WL-2'. It is on the basis of the marks secured, as petitioner stood first she was given the allotment letter. In pursuance of the allotment letter she got herself admitted to the course and she was studying in that course. On the date the marks were recorded, the petitioner and the fourth respondent had produced the service certificates showing experience. It is on consideration of the same, the selection committee did not give any marks to the fourth respondent whereas, the petitioner was given one mark. Similarly the petitioner was given two marks by the selection committee members. The grievance of the fourth respondent initially as could be seen from her letter as per Annexure-R15 is that after securing the documents produced by the petitioner, it is stated in the said letter she took exception to the award of one mark. Insofar as her publications are concerned, it is stated as second author heading. It is stated it is only E poster which was presented in RCOG Congress, Hyderabad. It is neither a research publication nor a case report as mentioned in the brochure. It is not BJOG peer reviewed as it is mentioned in BJOG site in which it was printed as mentioned in brochure. In support of her points, she relied on an E mail copy which she had received from BJOG Editor regarding status of the abstract. On the basis of the said communication she contends that it is not an article which is peer reviewed by BJOG and it is also an abstract rather than a research article. This fact was hidden by Dr. Arpitha at the time of interview. Therefore, she requested for canceling one mark as it did not fit into criteria of brochure appendix III. Then she requested the authority to please look into the matter and give fair marks and reverse the result as there is only difference of 0.5 marks. From this letter dated 22.8.2015 the fourth respondent was clear that if one marks is reduced to the petitioner, her total marks would be 70.5 whereas, her marks would be 70 and for the difference of 0.5 marks something is to be done. 16. From this letter dated 22.8.2015 the fourth respondent was clear that if one marks is reduced to the petitioner, her total marks would be 70.5 whereas, her marks would be 70 and for the difference of 0.5 marks something is to be done. 16. Even if the case of the fourth respondent is accepted as correct, still the petitioner would be having 70.5 marks to her credit whereas the marks obtained by the fourth respondent would be 70. She did not contend in that letter that she has furnished her experience certificate and that experience certificate furnished by her has not been properly considered and the marks (0) awarded by the committee is erroneous. In fact, the experience certificates Annexure-R-13 and R-17 are dated 27.07.2015 and 04.08.2015 respectively, implying that they have been obtained after the viva-voce were completed on 23.07.2015 and marks were awarded. A perusal of the original records maintained by the 3rd respondent Entrance Test Committee would show that the extra 1 mark for experience has been awarded to 4th respondent on 05.08.2015 when officially there was no meeting of the Committee. No reasons are forthcoming for the same. But the tabular sheet recording the marks to various candidates was prepared on 23.07.2015. 17. It is in this context it is necessary to see the final order passed by the committee on 23.9.2015. After referring to the rival contentions the decision rendered was after detailed discussion and representation of both the candidates, the committee decided to cancel 'one mark' awarded under the publication of Dr. Arpitha and thereby the fourth respondent will get 71.0 marks and the petitioner will get 69.5 marks. As is clear from the earlier portion of the order it is categorically stated that the petitioner was selected by 71.5 marks and the fourth respondent was wait listed with 71 marks and if one mark is deducted from 71.5, her marks would be 70.5 and not 69.5. Insofar as the marks secured by the fourth respondent is concerned, it is mentioned as 71. As stated by us earlier, the total marks secured, as written in the hand, is 70. Thereafter we find in a different ink "+1" is added and then in the last column it is shown as 71. Insofar as the marks secured by the fourth respondent is concerned, it is mentioned as 71. As stated by us earlier, the total marks secured, as written in the hand, is 70. Thereafter we find in a different ink "+1" is added and then in the last column it is shown as 71. In the body of the said score card, we find the signature of one of the committee member which is dated 05.08.2015 and there is also a writing to the effect "to include one mark to Dr. Renuka for experience certificate" and it is signed on 5.8.2015. There is one more signature with dated 05.08.2015. As is clearly set out in the representation by the fourth respondent to the authorities, her request was to reduce only one mark from the petitioner's total. Still 0.5 marks would be the difference and she wanted something is to be done. Now the authorities have added one mark ("to do something") to make her total as 71. In fact, if at all she was entitled to that one mark, it should have been corrected under the column meant for experience. The column meant for experience continues to show 0' whereas in the last column after 70, "+1" is added. It is in the bottom it is stated that it is included for experience. When it was not her grievance that the certificates produced by her showed her experience and the authorities have wrongly denied the marks under the said criteria and that she wanted one mark is to be added, without such a request, 'one mark' is added in the end. It is in this context it is to be seen whether once selection committee concludes its proceedings and gives marks, is it open to them to review the same at the instance of an aggrieved person. The provision which was pressed into service to show the source of power is, para 8 which reads as under:- 8. It is in this context it is to be seen whether once selection committee concludes its proceedings and gives marks, is it open to them to review the same at the instance of an aggrieved person. The provision which was pressed into service to show the source of power is, para 8 which reads as under:- 8. Penalty for false and incorrect statements: Where an applicant has furnished any false or incorrect statement in the application or where the affidavit filed by him or the certificate furnished by him contains any false or incorrect statement, the application shall be liable to be rejected and his selection for admission to the Post-Graduate Super Specialty courses shall be forfeited after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter by the Entrance Test Committee. Further, clause 7 is also produced hereunder:- 7. Verification of information furnished in application of certain categories: Certificates produced by the candidates shall be verified. On such verification, information furnished by a candidate, if found to be false or incorrect, action under Sec. 8 shall be taken. Validity and authenticity of all certificates are subject to verification at the time of spot selection. Mere fact of appearing for the Entrance Test and securing a position in the merit lists shall not confer any right to claim a seat by the candidate. 18. In the instant case the petitioner has not furnished any false statement or any incorrect statement or any false or incorrect statement is contained in a certificate. What is produced is her publications. Anybody could read and find out whether such publication satisfies the requirements prescribed under the brochure. It is not in dispute that those publications were handed over to the members of the Entrance Test Committee. They have gone through the same and they have awarded 'two marks'. Assuming that the said publications do not satisfy the requirements, the committee has now reduced one mark. Even after reducing one mark, the petitioner has secured 70.5 marks. Whereas the marks secured by the fourth respondent is 70 marks. Now what is sought to be done is, one mark is added to the fourth respondent, making it 71. The aforesaid clauses do not empower the committee to add marks even without a request. Even if there is a request it does not empower to add marks. Whereas the marks secured by the fourth respondent is 70 marks. Now what is sought to be done is, one mark is added to the fourth respondent, making it 71. The aforesaid clauses do not empower the committee to add marks even without a request. Even if there is a request it does not empower to add marks. In fact the arguments were canvassed by both the parties to show how the certificates produced by the fourth respondent do not meet the requirements. In fact those documents were produced on 23.7.2015. The date of certificate is 6.6.2014. It is after scrutinizing the same, no marks were given. It is only by looking into the certificates, which are dated 4.8.2015, on 5.8.2015 one mark is added i.e. purported to have been done on 23.9.2015 when the second committee met. If before the second committee met on 23.9.2015 certificates dated 4.8.2015 are taken note off and one mark is awarded on 5.8.2015, it is a clear case of interpolation of solemn document i.e. the said material alteration is made even before hearing the petitioner and without notice to the petitioner. A bare look at the original proceedings establishes this fact. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Valiammal Rangarao Ramachar vs. Muthukumaraswamy Gounder & Another reported in (1982) 3 SCC 508 held that a motivated interpolation in a solemn document completely vitiates the document. Again the Apex Court in the case Loonkaran Sethiya & Others vs. Ivan E. John & Others ( AIR 1977 SC 336 ) held as under:-, "a material alteration is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties, as ascertained by the deed in its original state, or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally expressed, or reduces to certainty some provision which was originally unascertained and as such void, or which may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed. The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed." 20. Now a bare perusal of the original records discloses no marks have been awarded after looking into the experience certificate by the Committee. In the letter referred to supra the fourth respondent did not make any grievance nor sought one marks on that count. Now a bare perusal of the original records discloses no marks have been awarded after looking into the experience certificate by the Committee. In the letter referred to supra the fourth respondent did not make any grievance nor sought one marks on that count. It is on 5.8.2015 the certificate dated 4.8.2015 has been pressed into consideration. Acting on the same, one mark is added at the end with a note that it is meant for 'experience'. All this is done behind the back of the petitioner. Petitioner had no notice. The petitioner is not heard and this material alteration if allowed to stand it would seriously affect the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the fourth respondent in unequivocal terms admits in the letter if one mark is reduced to the petitioner, still she secures 70.5 marks whereas she has secured 70 marks and something is to be done because the difference in the marks is only 0.5. When that being the case certainly the committee members, whoever it may be, at whatever stage, have exceeded their limits in adding one marks and making the total as 71, and allotting the seat which they had earlier allotted to the petitioner which was on a purely merit basis. We have set out in detail that in the statement of objections filed by the authorities, absolutely there is no explanation forthcoming regarding the aforesaid interpolations. Also no explanation is forthcoming from the records or pleadings of the respondents 1 to 3 as to when the meeting notice is served upon the petitioner. It is her specific case that no hearing or meeting notice is served upon her. 21. In fact in the statement of objections filed in the tabular column, they have shown one mark as against senior residency which is missing in the originals wherein it is shown as total 71. In the entire statement of objections, they have not mentioned how and when this one mark came to be added. 22. Under these circumstances, the conduct of the respondents in altering marks without a request for reviewing their earlier stand is without any justification and cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, such addition has no legal effect and is liable to be set aside. In fact, the records show when proceedings were initiated against the petitioner they have followed no procedure at all. Under these circumstances, the conduct of the respondents in altering marks without a request for reviewing their earlier stand is without any justification and cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, such addition has no legal effect and is liable to be set aside. In fact, the records show when proceedings were initiated against the petitioner they have followed no procedure at all. When a valid right is accrued to the petitioner in securing the seat in the post graduate super specialty course and she was attending the course for more than two months, if that is to be withdrawn certainly the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. The records speak for themselves. The show cause notice Annexure D dated 15.9.2015 reads as under:- 'The meeting of the PG Super Specialty Entrance Test Committee-2015 is convened on 23/09/2015 at 03.00 PM in the Board Room of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor to discuss about grievances letter submitted by Dr. Renuka Gupta and Dr. Arpitha A Candidates appeared for M.Ch. Gynaec Oncology Viva-Voce held on 23-07-2015 for the academic year 2015-16. The following members are requested to attend the meeting without fail.' 23. In that notice there is a reference to the letter submitted by the fourth respondent, which was not enclosed to her. She was kept in dark about the case which she was expected to meet which fact she has categorically said in Annexure-E, still no remedial steps were taken. Another instance which smacks of manipulation is the second representation (Annexure-R18). It is dated 23.09.2015 and is said to have been handed over at 4.30 P.M., and it is in this representation a new case of deduction of 2 marks is set out. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was not furnished a copy of the same. The said representation is hand written. It does not inspire confidence and little weight can be attached to it. 24. The order passed on 23.9.2015 does not show any addition of one mark after the announcements of the results. It proceeds on the basis that she has secured 71 marks which is factually incorrect. Thus the entire proceedings initiated is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and the order passed is ex-facie illegal and requires to be set aside. 25. It proceeds on the basis that she has secured 71 marks which is factually incorrect. Thus the entire proceedings initiated is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and the order passed is ex-facie illegal and requires to be set aside. 25. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J&K, AIR 1993 SC 2638 . That was a case where a successful candidate had not included the qualification for such eligibility as he had not acquired the same prior to 12th standard examination. He acquired the same long after he had passed 12th standard examination and thereafter at the subsequent stage 'mountaineering' as an approved sporting activity was included without affording equal opportunity to the persons who are similarly placed. It is in that context the Apex Court has held as under:- "9. What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent No. 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself; engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analyses embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the court......". 26. In the case on hand, she (petitioner) did possess the requisite qualification. Petitioner participated in the written examination, she participated in the viva voce, she produced all documents which are in her possession for scrutiny to the Committee. Then after scrutinizing, the Committee has allotted marks. Further they have added marks. The petitioner cannot be penalised. 26. In the case on hand, she (petitioner) did possess the requisite qualification. Petitioner participated in the written examination, she participated in the viva voce, she produced all documents which are in her possession for scrutiny to the Committee. Then after scrutinizing, the Committee has allotted marks. Further they have added marks. The petitioner cannot be penalised. The Committee even if it committed a mistake in wrongly giving one marks, it could not have awarded marks to respondent No. 4 without a request from her, without assigning any reasons, why they are reviewing their earlier decision to award marks. The way in which marks is awarded as set out by us clearly demonstrates the manipulations done in giving marks. Therefore, such a thing cannot be encouraged is the law laid down by the Apex Court and therefore, we do not appreciate the action of the authorities in this regard which has deprived the petitioner of her legitimate seat to which she was admitted on the basis of the marks. The records also disclose the fourth respondent had written a letter to Hon'ble Minister for Health and Family Affairs complaining all unfairness in the viva voce. In fact, the said letter was routed by Sri. Prasad, a member of the Parliament, who in turn had written a letter to the Health Minister. Those letters are sent by the MCI to the authorities. Probably those letters triggered the jurisdiction of the authorities to review their earlier selection which otherwise they did not possess. 27. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the action taken by the respondents cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is hereby set aside. 28. Hence, the following order: i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The Allotment Order in favour of 4th respondent - Annexure-F dated 29.9.2015 and the Official Memorandum canceling the allotment in favour of the petitioner and relieving her from the course are hereby quashed. iii. The authorities shall permit the petitioner to continue and complete her course and further permit her to take up and complete the examination, see that the stipend payable to her is paid promptly and further the authorities shall also take steps to see that the name of the petitioner is forwarded to the MCI and all other authorities so that none raises any objections on the basis of the impugned orders which is set aside today. iv. iv. The original records produced by the second respondent shall be in the court custody for a period of six months. v. It is needless to point out that having regard to the fact that 0.5 marks is the difference now between these two candidates, the authorities shall find out a way to accommodate the fourth respondent, if possible in law.