Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 964
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ANOOP V. MOHTA & V.L. ACHLIYA
Subham Dutt - Appellant
Versus
The Convenor, CLAT 2015 (UG) Exam & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1784 of 2015
Decided On: 02-07-2015
For the Petitioner:Kevic Setalvad, Sr. Advocate with V.M. Thorat, Pooja Thorat, Sumit Patni i/b Som Shankar Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Ravi Kadam, Sr. Advocate with Rishabh Sancheti, Satish Upadhyay, Abhay Itagi i/b M.V. Kini & Company, R2, Dushyant Kumar, Advocates, R3, Mihir Desai, Sr. Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to intervene in examination disputes, ensuring a fair and transparent resolution through the appointment of an Expert Panel/Committee to clarify objections and make a decision with reasons, ultimately leading to the re-preparation of the merit list.
Headnote:
CLAT - Examination Dispute - - [2002(3) Bom CR 219, 2005) 13 SCC 749, AIR 1983 SC 1230, AIR 2012 SC 3396] - The court addressed the dispute arising from the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2015 examination. The petitioner challenged the model answer sheet and the subsequent ranking, seeking reevaluation and reassessment of the results. The court directed the appointment of an Expert Panel/Committee to clarify objections and make a decision with reasons, leading to the re-preparation of the merit list. The final decision was made subject to the outcome of the Expert Panel/Committee's decision, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty, with no order as to costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student who had cleared the Class XII board examinations, challenged the results of the CLAT 2015 examination, seeking reevaluation and reassessment of the results due to discrepancies in the model answer sheet and subsequent ranking. The petitioner's objections were not adequately addressed by the respondents, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the appointment of an Expert Panel/Committee to clarify objections and make a decision with reasons, leading to the re-preparation of the merit list. The final decision was made subject to the outcome of the Expert Panel/Committee's decision, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty, with no order as to costs.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the discrepancies in the model answer sheet and subsequent ranking of the CLAT 2015 examination, leading to the petitioner's challenge and the court's intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to appoint an Expert Panel/Committee to clarify objections and make a decision with reasons, leading to the re-preparation of the merit list, was based on the need for a fair and transparent resolution of the dispute, ensuring the rights and entitlements of the students.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty, with no order as to costs, and the final decision was made subject to the outcome of the Expert Panel/Committee's decision.
Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has prayed as under:
“a) …...to correct the model answers and reassess the Impugned Results dated 20th May 2015 on the basis of the corrected model answers;
b) …..to allot all the students seats on the basis of marks/rankings as determined post reassessment of the Impugned Results dated 20th May, 2015.
c) …..thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to reassess the entire answer sheets of all the students appearing for the CLAT, 2015 examinations on the basis of the correct model answers;
d) …..direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to reassess the entire answer sheets on the basis of the correct model answers and award One mark each to all those students who have attempted these disputed questions or in the alternative direct that the disputed questions should not be considered while computing the ranking or the markings and while allotting the seats in the institutions participating in CLAT, 2015;
e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition the Respondent No.1 be injuncted from issuing the 3rd allotment list i.e. 21st June, 2015.
f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, this Hon'ble Court stay the operation of the impugned results dated 20th May, 2015;
g) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Petitioner and other similarly placed students (whomsoever has attempted these questions) be awarded 1 mark each for attempting these questions.
h) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Respondent No.1 be directed not to consider these questions during the process of allotment of seats in the institutions as preferred by these students.
i) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Respondent No.1 and all the participating institutions be restrained from allotting all the seats.
j) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Respondent No.1. and all the institutions participating in CLAT, 2015 be directed to keep at least 15 seats as a provision for post reassessment changes in the markings and the rankings of the students.”
3. The basic events are as under:
The Petitioner is aged 18 years, residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Petition. The Petitioner is a student who has just cleared his Class XII board examinations by a score of 94.15% under the Maharashtra Higher Secondary State Board. The Petitioner has given examination of Common Law Admission Test, 2015 (for short, “CLAT2015”) to pursue his aspiration in one of the National Law Universities. The Petitioner has secured a rank 278 in the CLAT-2015. Results declared on 20 May 2015 and thereafter revised.
4. Respondent No.1 has conducted the CLAT examinations in the country for the year 2015. Respondent No.2 is the Union of India. The role of this Respondent (CLAT) is quite limited. Their expertise on the subject/topic/field is also limited, on the basis of which compulsory 200 objective questions and key answers were prepared and announced, so also the self study kit.
5. CLAT is a non-statutory body created for the convenience of the students seeking admission to the various National Law Universities in the country under Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). An entrance test is conducted to provide a list of candidates on the basis of 'merit-cum-preference' to each University for admission to their UG/PG programs, as per the qualifications, reservation and other conditions laid down under the respective statutes of the participating Universities. CLAT is an all India entrance examination conducted on rotation by 16 National Law Universities for admissions to their UG and PG programmes (LLB and LLM).
6. On 24 December 2014, on 25 December 2014, Respondent No.1 issued the
