•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

HC [maybe] orders CLAT convenor to publish mysteriously missing question papers [CLARIFICATION]

The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2015 convenor RMLNLU Lucknow will have to publish the question paper and a full merit list of candidates of the CLAT 2015, on CLAT’s website, as per Tuesday’s Allahabad high court order.

The CLAT 2015 brochure provides that the convenor will release the question paper [see clarification below] and the full list of candidates with ranks and scores, on the exam’s official website, after the exam. But the convenor RMLNLU has not yet complied with this requirement more than two weeks after the 10 May exam.

Aditya Dua and 10 other petitioners filed a writ (32024 of 2015) in the Allahabad high court, through advocate Manish Goyal, to compel the convenor to publish the paper and the list, raising the following allegations in the writ:

  • “the girl candidate who has secured a State Rank of 51 is shown to have obtained a State Women Ranking of 105.
  • a person who scored 26.25 marks was given an All India ranking of 4539 while another candidate with a similar CLAT score was given an All India Rank of 25073.
  • serious allegations of malafide against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 who appear to have been the only institutes informed of the fact that the examination would be online examination.
  • There are also serious allegations against the said respondents as carried in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the writ petition, thus a large number of students from these Institutes alone have secured very high marks.
  • As per the Brochure result was to be published on the website carrying over all merit list of declared candidates along with their categories. He submits that the same has not been done and published by the organizing University till date.”

Tuesday was the last day of CLAT counselling because of which the matter was listed urgently and Justice Yashwant Varma ordered the convenor “to publish the results in accordance with the provisions of Brochure as appearing at page 38 of the paper book or show cause to this Court”.

For consideration of the other allegations justice Varma posted the matter for hearing on 9 July.

Clarification 3 June 2015: Legally India initially reported that the court had ordered publication of the question papers, in accordance with the brochure. However, the order only mentions that results should be publsihed in accordance with the brochure. The CLAT brochure does not explicitly mention that question papers should be uploaded, although a previous version of the FAQ on the CLAT website did. It therefore appears that the high court order may not have explicitly ordered the publication of the answer and question sheets, subject to whether the FAQ would be deemed to be part of the brochure on the website.

RMLNLU vice chancellor Prof Gurdip Singh was not reachable for comment by phone at the time of going to press.

In November 2014 Singh told Legally India that the first list which will be issued after declaration of the result will show the ranks of all candidates and will show the universities allotted to each candidate based on his or her rank. After this list is published candidates will be given the option to state their university preferences and subsequent lists will be published based on ranking and preferences.

CLAT has faced writs since its first edition, including one where it was seen that the petitioner had lost out on a Nalsar Hyderabad seat due to a mistake in the question paper, and several others on errors in university allotment lists which are published on CLAT’s website, before counselling ends, each year.

Click to show 11 comments
at your own risk
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.