WP(C) 3732/2012

Page 1 of 19

39 $~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 3732/2012 & CM.7831/2012

%

Judgment dated 31.07.2012

SHIVANGI GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.R.K. Handoo and Mr.Yoginder

Handoo and Mr.S.P. Pandey, Advs

versus

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY JODHPUR & ANR..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with

Mr.Anand Varma and Mr.Amit Pathak,

Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1.

Rule.

2.

With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is set down

for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed for

disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner appeared in the Senior

Secondary School Examination, 2012 conducted by CBSE and cleared the

same. Petitioner, thereafter applied and appeared in the Common Law

Admission Test (CLAT), 2012. This exam was conducted on 13.05.2012.

It may be noticed that the CLAT examination is conducted by the

National Law Schools every year on rotation basis in sequence to their

establishment and accordingly this year‟s exam was conducted by the

respondents, National Law University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, for 14

National Law Schools/ Universities for admission to the under graduate

2012:DHC:4712

WP(C) 3732/2012

Page 2 of 19

degree programme; and the successful candidates are to be allotted to all

other National Law Schools/ Universities, as per their All India Rank in

(CLAT), 2012, for the year 2012. The result of this examination was

declared on 28.05.2011. The petitioner has secured 113 marks, while the

cut-off declared by the respondent is 123 marks. Since the marks of the

petitioner were less than the cut-off declared by the respondent, the

petitioner

could

not

qualify

for

admission

in

the

B.A./BSc./B.B.A./BSW/B.Com. LLB (Hons.) Degree course. The All

India Rank of the petitioner is 2719. According to the petitioner, the

information brochure which was provided by the respondents along with

the application form specified the syllabus for Common Law Admission

Test.

3.

Mr.Handoo, counsel for the petitioner has relied on various clauses of the

brochure to show that the respondents have asked such questions in the

legal aptitude section which are incomplete in nature. It is the case of the

petitioner that the questions are out of the syllabus and the inclusion of

these questions in the examination has rendered the preparation of the

petitioner as nugatory and consequently the petitioner was incapable to

answer these questions on the basis of the preparation of the syllabus.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the exam conducted and result

declared is not the true test of ability / merit, but a test based on hit and

trial where merit has become a casualty. Counsel for the petitioner

contends that with a view to get the anomaly corrected in the question

paper, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents and also an

application under Right to Information Act. Since no positive reply was

received from the respondents, petitioner filed a writ petition

No.3675/2012.

5.

In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to upload

2012:DHC:4712

WP(C) 3732/2012

Page 3 of 19

the question paper and model answer key. Mr.Handoo, counsel for the

petitioner submits that the question paper has revealed three types of

irregularities which has rendered the whole process perfunctory and have

caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has

categorized the irregularities in the whole process and has submitted that

there are questions which are wrongly answered in the model answer key

(hereinafter referred to as „category-1‟); there are questions which relate

to the field of legal aptitude, which are incomplete in nature, as the

question paper di