CWP No.12388 of 2015

[ 1 ]

*****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No.12388 of 2015

Date of decision:21.07.2015

Agrima Lailer

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate,

for respondents No.3 to 5.

*****

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner appeared on 10.05.2015 in the Common Law

Admission Test-2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “CLAT-2015”) held at

Patiala. She allegedly secured 91.5 marks and her All India Rank was 718.

It is alleged that the respondents displayed the answer key with question

papers on their website and as per the petitioner, there were discrepancies in

the answer keys of about 30 questions. She made two online

representations for correcting the errors but the respondents cancelled only

two questions and awarded marks against question No.35 and 186. In view

of the aforesaid correction, the ranking of the petitioner was revised from

718 to 693. It is, therefore, prayed in the petition that the examination held

on 10.05.215 may be cancelled and an independent expert may be appointed

VINOD KUMAR

2015.09.16 10:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CWP No.12388 of 2015

[ 2 ]

*****

to look into the accuracy of all the questions and answers of the CLAT-

2015.

In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5, it is

alleged that the present petition is not maintainable before this Court on the

ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the CLAT-2015 was got

conducted by the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University,

Lucknow; the application forms were submitted and received at Lucknow;

the result was declared at Lucknow and all the fees etc. were also paid at

Lucknow. It is further alleged that the petitioner was granted admission on

27.06.2015 in the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala,

pursuant to publication of 3^rd allotment list on 21.06.2015. However, the

petitioner exercised her option for up-gradation of her preference of the Law

Institute as in the list of Universities, the Rajiv Gandhi National University

of Law, Patiala is at Sr. No.9, whereas the Hidayatullah National Law

University, Raipur is at Sr. No.7. The petitioner was allotted the

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, in the 4^th and final allotment

list issued on 01.07.2015, where she took admission on 06.07.2015 and after

her exit from the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, the seat

vacated by her was allotted to the next student, who is not a party to the

present writ petition.

It is further alleged that after declaration of the result, certain

complaints were received (none from the petitioner) regarding certain

questions/answers and keeping in view the larger common interest of the

candidates, some of these questions were referred to the panel of experts,

VINOD KUMAR

2015.09.16 10:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CWP No.12388 of 2015

[ 3 ]

*****

upon which certain disputed questions were got reviewed from the experts

and except two questions [Question No.35 (ID 1744) and Question No.186

(ID 1907)], all other questions were found to be correct. Question No.35

was recalled and one mark was given to all the candidates. In Question

No.186, since two answers (`C' & `D') were identical, therefore, one mark

was given to all those candidates who had opted either option `C' or `D'.

It is further alleged that similar issue with regard to correctness

of the 30 questions/answers was also raised before the Bombay High Court

in the case of “Mr. Subham Dutt vs. The Convenor, CLAT 2015 (UG)

Exam and others”, Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1784 of 2015, decided by

on 02.07.2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division

Bench with