Facebook Twitter Google Email

Update 10 June: Notice was served this morning on the CLAT secretariat, which is to respond by 18 June. Agarwal said that there was no stay on the counselling, though the prayer for the suit was for the CLAT result to be "withdrawn completely" so there was still scope for the court to intervene.

A Common Law Admissions Test (CLAT) taker has filed a petition to stay the CLAT counselling process and to hold a new exam not marred by the ongoing controversy surrounding the recently republished results.

Advocate Pulkit Agarwal said that he and Siddharth Jain had filed a petition before the Karkardooma vacation bench of the Delhi district court on behalf of Tahini Bhushan, the sister of a CLAT applicant, which is scheduled to be heard tomorrow at 10 am.

The petition seeks an "ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the defendant No. 1 [the CLAT committee] from conducting the counseling of CLAT as per the revised result of CLAT declared on 06th June, 2014" and that a "fresh CLAT needs to be conducted on immediate basis and the result declared by defendant no. 1 containing discrepancies must not be allowed to determine the future of 33,000 candidates".

The petition claims that apparent errors in the CLAT and an alleged continuing mix up in the answer sheets of candidates required the court to take action: "That the defendant no. 1 have not been able to conduct the CLAT 2014 flawlessly. A lot of discrepancies pertain with regards to the result and the revised result declared by the defendant no. 1 on 06th June, 2014 still appears to be faulty prima facie. The clarity and transparency is absent."

Full petition copy

More background on the CLAT 2014 controversy

Share this: Facebook Twitter Google Email

We can guarantee you'll pass the All India Bar Exam (AIBE) on 7 September

because we've helped 100s of others do so.

barhacker.in (100% satisfaction since 2011)
Related Articles
Click to show 18 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)

NB: By reading the comments you agree that they are the personal views and opinions of readers, for which Legally India has no liability whatsoever. Because anonymous comments may be biased or unreliable, you agree that you will not allow any comment(s) to affect your estimation of any person(s) or organisation(s). If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to administrator' below the comment with your objection and we will review it as soon as practicable.

reader comments:comments rss feedrefresh

Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Show latest comments only (beta)

1
 
Show?
Recommend! +4 Objection! -3 Scooter-S 2014-06-10 13:29
serves Gunlu (i am not dyslexic) right. Mismanagement of this highest order.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
1.1
 
Show?
Recommend! +4 Objection! -1 Agree 2014-06-11 13:14
I also fear a scam and seats-for-cash.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
1.1.1
 
Show?
Recommend! +1 Objection! -3 Scooter-S 2014-06-12 13:18
it well might be. it will be interesting to do a check on the demography of the students on GNLU. Interesting how in the domicile reservation, kids of most of the rich and powerful have made it to the college.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
1.1.2
 
Show?
Recommend! +1 Objection! -0 Guest 2014-06-18 12:35
What happened today was hearing rite
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
2
 
Recommend! +9 Objection! -1 abhay 2014-06-10 16:19  interesting
who advised on the forum. should have moved the high court
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
3
 
Show?
Recommend! +5 Objection! -2 samir 2014-06-11 10:17
The list, which is now finally out, is an indication that the real scam is perhaps the leakage of paper. First of all so many have simultaneously broken the previous records. In the normal course we would see a significant gap between the first position and the second. Last year when the topper got much lower marks, the difference was of 10 and now it is barely half a marks. The degree of convergence which we see in the first 10 marks is phenomenal and unprecedented. Further we observe that among the first 12 candidates 5 have MP as their domicile, an unprecedented 40% for a state not known for its educational attainments and success in competitive exams. The frequency with which we observe the MP domiciles in the top end does not end at rank 12 but goes on giving the impression that at around 20% of the top 100 are from MP. Once in a while we observe Bihar, AP, Punjab and UP domiciles, with three of the four being more well known for their performance in competitive exams. The test is to see how many of those who scored 150 or above marked for the four questions whose answers were wrongly given in the first instance by GNLU and the question which had two correct answers. Of the 4 whose answers was not known to the paper setter, they should get the correct answer in at least 3 cases and wrong in one, by the law of probability. If they mark the same wrong answers as GNLU marked originally when it gave the model answers, then we ought to suspect as the correct answers will be uniform but there is lack of uniformity in wrong responses. Further, in the question which had two correct responses, what is the proportion of those who gave the same response as put out by GNLU. If there are two correct responses then ideally those who got it correct should be evenly distributed between the two.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
3.1
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -1 22upon7 2014-06-11 17:23
What list are you talking about? The merit list is out already. :|
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
3.2
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Coolstatsbruah 2014-06-12 13:51
Where did you access the whole rank list from?
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
3.3
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -2 Coolstatsbruah 2014-06-12 13:51
Where is the list published? I too would like to confirm your earth shattering analysis.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
4
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Sushreet 2014-06-12 16:52
Hey kian I've been trying to download the full petition. But I need access because it's not publicly shared on drive. Could you please make the petition public or grant me access?

Thanks so much!
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
4.1
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 kianganz 2014-06-12 17:00
Sorry Sushreet - didn't realise it was inaccessible. It should now be accessible:
drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mzcMX2HT3sMUNybGg5VkRjQWc/edit?usp=sharing
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
5
 
Show?
Recommend! +2 Objection! -1 A CLAT 2014 ASPIRANT 2014-06-14 07:48
I took the CLAT 2014 with the hope of a fair and an equitable evaluation process. The so called discrepancy is absolutely unpardonable and unacceptable. An error once committed gives a bad feeling for all aspirants - Was this an intentional ruse to accommodate a few privileged ones or a genuine error, either of which is unacceptable. If it is the former then - A re-exam is absolutely obligatory on the part of the CLAT committee and if it is the latter the inefficiency of the CLAT conducting body can be rectified and its credibility salvaged by a re-exam.

A re-exam is the only way the CLAT committee can salvage its credibility and reinstill confidence in persons like us. This nagging feeling of a possible scam in this process terribly disillusions aspirants like us, especially at the nascent stage of our professional life.

Most importantly, we start off our professional life with a bitter taste and it does not augur well for the potential legal eagles of this country.

Why couldn't the CLAT committee conduct a computerised online exam at their premises or from an outsourced agency - The results will be transparent and instant, no chance of a potential scam. The fact that CLAT conducts the exam, as it is now, gives us a feeling that they are keeping an option open for the Privileged Ones - Sorry for the pensive note, but please empathise with the ones who are not in the privileged list.

I implore, all concerned to do the needful, as well as to the Honourable Jury who is dealing with this appeal to give us all a fair chance and an error free chance.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
5.1
 
Show?
Recommend! +2 Objection! -1 Anon 2014-06-14 20:49
Well, I should have gotten NLS instead of NUJS at my rank, so I went and compared the distribution of people from various states with the distribution patterns from previous states.For example:-

Madhya Pradesh CLAT 13 - 14 in top 100, CLAT 14 - 13 in top 100

Bihar CLAT 13 - CLAT 13 - 5 in top 100, CLAT 14 - 2 in Top 100

Andhra Pradesh - CLAT 13 - 5 in top 100, CLAT 14 - 7 in Top 100

Given the consistency of all the states in terms of people in top ranks, across several years, including this one, it is unlikely that any state has been given preferential treatment in the rankings. That would drastically drop the number of people from states like the ones i mentioned in the top 100 ranks.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
5.1.1
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 Guest 2014-06-16 14:16
This list and statistics quoted above may not be correct given the fact that most applicants are under the general category without any claim based on domicile which will not reveal whether there is a change in favour of any one state or for a particular town/city/centre in the CLAT 2014 results.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
5.2
 
Recommend! +4 Objection! -0 Don 2014-06-16 14:11
Kids, no State has been given preference - it is a money game, not a regional game. If you see Samir's post above, he is only suggesting that some MP people may have had access to the CLAT paper. The real scam is sale of the CLAT paper and allocation of a few leftover seats at the end of the counselling without going by merit, which happens almost every year. You won't even know whether some of the "toppers" had access to the model answer. I feel really sorry for all you bright hardworking kids whom the lawschools con out of the rightful dues.
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
6
 
Show?
Recommend! +2 Objection! -2 Viraja 2014-06-18 08:58
A local law entrance exam was better than clat , it printed barcode,name rollno and photo of the candidate and fee was 500 only and clat fee was4000 and it was so disorganised
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link
7
 
Show?
Recommend! +0 Objection! -0 clat 2014 taker 2014-06-30 18:11
Clat 2014 test sucks ....I wll nvr try for clat
Reply | Quote | Report to LI | #  link

Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.

Add comment (Alt+Shift+A)

We and fellow readers love when you share your thoughts in a comment but please:
  • be nice to other readers and humans who likely have feelings,
  • use full English sentences and words, and
  • abide by Legally India's full terms and conditions in using the site.