The Bombay high court judgment has been uploaded on the Bombay high court website, ordering an expert committee with the power to take a decision that could revise the “merit list of candidates if necessary”, making “the whole merit list and all subsequent process, will be subject to outcome of the Expert Panel/Comittee’s decision”.
Accepting most of the submissions of the petitioner, it ordered in a 33-page-judgment that convenor RMLNLU Lucknow appoint an expert panel within five days, which within three days should take a decision on all objections, and within four days finish the process or revising the merit list:
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
But reading direction c it is possible to read that as directing that in these 4 days, the expert panel would either take a decision/ actions for re-evaluation and revision of the merit list or it will pass or declare the merit list/ results. Therefore if the expert panel decides to re-evaluate papers and revise the merit list then the process can extend beyond these 4 days.
What is the correct interpretation?
Does his decision apply to the entire CLAT process or only to the petitioners.
Initial thoughts without clicking on the pdf.
Maybe someone should move the Supreme Court in this 8 day respite to get an even better order.
One thing though - the court has been soft on the CLAT convener. Its clear that this fiasco is more than just incompetence, it certainly looks like corruption to me.
Some thoughts/ issues/ points that I think are interesting or relevant.
What is the legal status of the CLAT examiners/committee/ convener? They claim to have limited expertise and in fact claim that they are not experts. This body needs to be replaced with a more formal body going forward.
The CLAT committee deliberately violated the Kerela High Court order dated 15 June and this shows malafides. Maybe the CLAT examiners should also have been impleaded under their own names as they deserve to be held accountable.
CLAT lawyers on instructions presumably, deliberately attempted to delay the hearing of this and other matters by evading notice, delaying responses and then failing to respond fully to the court's directions. No doubt they hoped that once the admission deadlines approached the courts would hesitate to interfere. Once again this conduct reflects malafides. The CLAT convener/ examiners misled the courts that they intended to have all matters clubbed, yet the process to do this was not even initiated. The CLAT committee malafidely delayed its response so that it might not be forced to rectify the sorry situation.
Previous orders in this matter establish that the CLAT lawyers misled the court that the petitioner's objections/ concerns had been satisfactorily dealt with.
The CLAT affidavit dated 25 June 2015 where it took formal objections as to maintainability, delay, joinder of parties, scope of judicial review etc again points to malafides rather than a sincere desire to set things right.
In this affidavit, a bogus objection was taken by the ClAT convener that they wanted to keep the names of the expert panel confidential. Why? On what basis? Instead this appears to have been a ploy to keep its alleged evaluation of the petitioner's concerns confidential even from the petitioner. That the Court eventually rejected this 'confidential' document as unsatisfactory once again points to malafides and a desire to avoid scrutiny by the CLAT convener on how it was actually dealing with the complaint. See how in para 16 the court rejects the confidential document handed over as being unsatisfactory.
The further request for time by the CLAT lawyers to clarify questions as recorded in para 18 which was rejected by the court again points to the malafides of the CLAT. It shows that even as late as 30 June or 2 July, the CLAT examiners had not sorted out their response to the questions with mistakes. They were simply hoping to get away without being held to account.
The decision records the deliberate delays by the CLAT examiners & their failure to sort out the mess created. Overall its a good decision by the Bombay High Court but they should have been harsher on the CLAT committee.
One lacuna in the order is that the CLAT has not been expressly directed to make its future decisions and reasoning public in order to give time to candidates to respond to the decisions that CLAT makes pursuant to this order.
I think some candidate/s should approach the Supreme Court.
Relevant excerpts from the detailed order are listed as follows:
19. Strikingly, there are various such issues/objections have been raised in the various High Courts, including Allahabad, Keral, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. All these matters are revolving around various objections of CLAT2015. The decision, even if any, given by the one Authority and/or one Court, it would not serve and /or solve the problems, as it is question of relying on "merit-cum-preference" basis for allotting admission/seats to the respective University/college. It is for the Respondents, ultimately to take final decision in the interest of all, at the earliest. No steps taken or pointed out to club all these pending matters one place/Court, as recorded in order dated 23 June 2015.
20. There are other questions as stated to be wrong, which are subject matter of other Petitions in other High Courts, which cannot be overlooked even by Respondent No.1's Expert Panel. [...] if the questions so raised by the Petitioner and if the issues are Petitioner and if the issues are decided in his favour and/or in favour of such similarly situated students, there is no reason that the concerned Respondents should not decide and/or take decision to revaluate and/or re-assess the marks and prepare the merit lists in accordance with law.
24. [...] One mark can make and/or mar the career of students of his choice, specifically when his wish and/or desire, based upon the hard-work and/or endeavour he/she has made, which needs to be respected by all. The legitimate expectation is clear that the student if has answered correctly the compulsory questions, he is entitled for the legitmate marks. The rejection and denial of such mark, if answer is correct, is definitely unacceptable to any one. We are not inclined to over this, in this era of competition, at entrance level of any examinations/courses.
Also, all candidates with concerns should promptly write to the CLAT convener referring to this Bom HC decision and inquire about the status of and procedure for compliance with this order. Also place all your concerns before the CLAT again in writing.
And really, some candidates should move the SC & get an even better order which forces CLAT to respond transparently to all concerns of all candidates. With the Vyapam saga now centre-stage, the SC should be receptive to valid concerns about corruption in the CLAT.
The decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court is a welcome step for reviewing UG candidates and make out the ranking list afresh. But for the PG candidates is it applicable? It is understood that there is a Writ Petition filed in Rajasthan High Court for reviewing 7 questions, but the CLAT Authorities have not acted so far thereby causing a chance of employment opportunities in PSUs is fading out. At this stage what should we do? Pl advise.
Regards
Maybe you should contact the lawyer of the successful Mumbai petitioner & the lawyer of the Rajasthan petitioner and talk to a lawyer about your case.
I don't know enough about the CLAT, the facts or the various petitions to answer your question.
Your best bet would be to move the SC.
The final allotment list is already out. And the students must individually approach respective universities for admission. Those universities must not go further with the admission process and wait till the expert committee comes up with something.
I agree that they are indifferent to what the courts have to say. It's clearly too late now. What if errors like this crept in other entrance examinations? Will they react the way CLAT committee did? There is a retest being conducted by AIPMT. CBSE and all the students must go through a lot. But still, they are doing what is right. CLAT committee must revise the results. There will be a delay in the whole process. But they need to undertsand how important this is for students who have prepared for the test putting in so much hard work and time. Everyone deserves a fair chance. Is justice too much to ask for? Each mark means a lot. Ask this to a student who has lost an NLU by 0.25 marks.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first