Examination malpractice and natural justice in mass cancellation of results and admissions, with no final majority determination.

Cancellation of medical entrance results and admissions was discussed in the context of alleged large-scale examination malpractice, with the opinions noting that reliable circumstantial and expert material may justify cancellation without individual notice to every candidate if the process is broadly vitiated. One opinion relied on public policy and declined equitable relief despite delay, while the other also refused extraordinary relief under Article 142. Both opinions treated the alleged defect in the Board's constitution as insufficient to warrant interference. The matter was not finally concluded by a majority determination and was placed before the Chief Justice for further orders.

---

---

Issues: The matter concerned the validity of cancellation of PMT results and admissions on the basis of alleged large-scale examination malpractice, the applicability of natural justice to such cancellations, the relevance of delay and equitable relief, and the effect of the alleged non-constitution of the Board under the statute.

Analysis: The opinions recorded that where the examination process is found, on reliable circumstantial and expert material, to have been vitiated on a large scale, the rule of audi alteram partem may not necessarily require individual notice to each candidate. One view treated the material as sufficient to support a finding of tampering, applied public policy considerations, and declined equitable relief despite delay, while the other agreed on the main controversy but declined to grant any extraordinary relief under Article 142. Both opinions accepted that the Board-constitution issue did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The appeal was not finally concluded by a majority determination in the present judgment and was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate further orders.

---