Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. The changing versions of the petitioner, in support of the plea of malice of the fifth respondent, would belie such a claim. While the petitioner had initially alleged in the writ affidavit that the sixth respondent was a near relative of the fifth respondent, he changed his version in his rejoinder affidavit where he stated that the father of the sixth respondent and the brother of the fifth respondent were posted together at Block Campus, Naugaon, District Uttarkashi; and the father of the sixth respondent was staying with the family of the fifth respondent, when he was posted at Naugaon, District Uttarkashi, at their native village in Kanseru, Block Naugaon, District Uttarkashi. While the writ affidavit talked of the fifth and the sixth respondent being related to each other, the version of the petitioner changed to one of friendship between the father of the sixth respondent and the brother of the fifth respondent. This version again changed during the course of arguments, with Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, stating (without any pleading in support thereof either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit) that the sister of the sixth respondent's father was married into the family of the fifth respondent. Allegations of malice must be founded on concrete material and not based on surmises and conjectures. The changing versions of the petitioner, from time to time, regarding the relationship between the fifth and the sixth respondent would not justify the selection process being set aside on the ground of malafides, more so as the fifth respondent was not even a member of the Interview Board. He was merely an observer, and could not have played any role in the allotment of marks to the interviewed candidates.