ssm1922wpl1784.15.

sxw

ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION

Vs.

TheConvenor,
CLAT2015(UG)Exam,
Dr.RamManoharLohiyaNational
LawUniversity,SectorD1,
LDAColony,KanpurRoadScheme,
Lucknow226012.

om

ba
y

.Petitioner.

ig
h

Mr.SubhamDutt,
S/o.Mr.SanjivDutt,
Aged18Years,ofMumbaiIndian
Inhabitant,residingatA21,
IncomeTaxColony,PeddarRoad,
Mumbai400026.

C
ou

WRITPETITION(LODGING)NO.1784OF2015

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY

TheUnionofIndia,
ThroughtheirDepartmentofHigher
Education,MinistryofHuman
ResourceDevelopment,
ShastriBhawan,Dr.RajendraPrasad
Road,NewDelhi.
TheAllIndiaCouncilforTechnical
Education,ThroughtheRegional
OfficerandDirector,WesternRegion
2ndFloor,IndustrialAssurance
Building,V.N.Road,Opp.Churchgate,
RailwayStation,Churchgate,
Mumbai400020.

.Respondents.

Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.M. Thorat, Ms. Pooja
Thorat,MrSumitPatnii/bMr.SomShankarSinha,forthePetitioner.
1/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm2922wpl1784.15.sxw

C
ou

rt

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Sancheti and Mr.
SatishUpadhyayandMr.AbhayItagii/bM.V.Kini&Companyfor
RespondentNo.1.
Mr.DushyantKumar,AdvocateforRespondentNo.2.
Mr.MihirDesai,Sr.AdvocateforRespondentNo.3.

CORAM: ANOOPV.MOHTAAND
V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.

ig
h

DATE:2JULY2015.

ORALJUDGMENT(PERANOOPV.MOHTA,J.):

Rule.Rulemadereturnableforthwith.

ThePetitionerhasprayedasunder:

a)

...to correct the model answers and reassess the

ImpugnedResultsdated20th May2015onthebasis
ofthecorrectedmodelanswers;

b)

..to allot all the students seats on the basis of

marks/rankingsasdeterminedpostreassessmentof
theImpugnedResultsdated20thMay,2015.

c)

..therebydirectingtheRespondentNo.1toreassess
theentireanswersheetsofallthestudentsappearing
fortheCLAT,2015examinationsonthebasisofthe
correctmodelanswers;

d)

..directionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionof

om

ba
y

Heardfinallybyconsentoftheparties.

2/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm3922wpl1784.15.sxw

C
ou

rt

India thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to re

assess the entire answer sheets on the basis of the
correctmodelanswersandawardOnemarkeachto
allthosestudentswhohaveattemptedthesedisputed
questionsorinthealternativedirectthatthedisputed
questionsshouldnotbeconsideredwhilecomputing
therankingorthemarkingsandwhileallottingthe
seatsintheinstitutionsparticipatinginCLAT,2015;

Thatpendingthehearingandfinaldisposalofthis
Petition the Respondent No.1 be injuncted from
issuingthe3rdallotmentlisti.e.21stJune,2015.

f)

That pending the hearing and final disposal of the

Petition,thisHon'bleCourtstaytheoperationofthe
impugnedresultsdated20thMay,2015;

g)

That pending the hearing and final disposal of the

Petition, the Petitioner and other similarly placed
students(whomsoeverhasattemptedthesequestions)
be awarded 1 mark each for attempting these
questions.

ba
y

ig
h

e)

om

h)

i)

j)

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
allotmentofseatsintheinstitutionsaspreferredby
thesestudents.
That pending the hearing and final disposal of the
Petition, the Respondent No.1 and all the
participatinginstitutionsberestrainedfromallotting
alltheseats.

That pending the hearing and final disposal of the

Petition,theRespondentNo.1.andalltheinstitutions
participatinginCLAT,2015bedirectedtokeepatleast
15seatsasaprovisionforpostreassessmentchanges
inthemarkingsandtherankingsofthestudents.
3/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm4922wpl1784.15.sxw

Thebasiceventsareasunder:

rt

C
ou

The Petitioner is aged 18 years, residing at the address

mentionedinthecausetitleofthePetition.ThePetitionerisastudent
whohasjustclearedhisClassXIIboardexaminationsbyascoreof
94.15%undertheMaharashtraHigherSecondaryStateBoard. The

ig
h

Petitioner has given examination of Common Law Admission Test,

2015(forshort,CLAT2015)topursuehisaspirationinoneofthe

NationalLawUniversities. ThePetitionerhassecuredarank278in
the CLAT2015. Results declared on 20 May 2015 and thereafter

ba
y

revised.

RespondentNo.1hasconductedtheCLATexaminationsin

om

thecountryfortheyear2015.RespondentNo.2istheUnionofIndia.
TheroleofthisRespondent(CLAT)isquitelimited. Theirexpertise

on the subject/topic/field is also limited, on the basis of which

compulsory200objectivequestionsandkeyanswerswereprepared
andannounced,soalsotheselfstudykit.

CLATisanonstatutorybodycreatedfortheconvenience

4/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm5922wpl1784.15.sxw

of the students seeking admission to the various National Law

rt

Universities in the country under Memorandum of Understanding

C
ou

(MOU).Anentrancetestisconductedtoprovidealistofcandidates
onthebasisof'meritcumpreference'toeachUniversityforadmission
totheirUG/PGprograms,asperthequalifications,reservationand
other conditions laid down under the respective statutes of the

ig
h

participatingUniversities.CLATisanallIndiaentranceexamination
conductedonrotationby16NationalLawUniversitiesforadmissions

totheirUGandPGprogrammes(LLBandLLM).

On24December2014,on25December2014,Respondent

ba
y

No.1issuedtheFirstAdmissionNotification,therebycallinguponthe
LawaspirantstomakeapplicationsforpursuingtheHighereducation

om

intheNationalLawSchoolscoveredunderCLAT2015.On1January
2015,RespondentNo.1startedacceptingtheOnlineapplicationforms

forCLAT2015.15April2015wasthelastdateforsubmissionofthe
Onlineapplication.On19April2015,theAdmitcards/Halltickets
weremadeavailabletothePetitionerthereby,confirmingthedateof
examination.10May2015wasthedateofexamination.On20May
2015,theResultsi.e.Meritlist(categorywise)alongwiththenotice

5/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm6922wpl1784.15.sxw

tothecandidatesforindicatingtheirchoicesofuniversitypreferences

rt

usingonlinecandidateportalwaspublished.RespondentNo.1along

C
ou

withthemarksheethadalsoissuedaModelAnswersheetonthebasis
ofwhichtheCorrections/marking/checkingoftheAnswersheetshas
beendone.ThePetitionerscored102.5andhadsecuredarank258.

The Petitioner, on perusal of the Model Answer paper

ig
h

realizedthattherewereseveralquestionswhichhavebeenanswered

incorrectly in the Model Answer sheet and on the basis of these

incorrect answer the corrections/marking/checking of the Answer

ba
y

sheethasbeendone. TheimpactofthesameisthattheAnswers
which were given by the Petitioner have been unfortunately been
consideredasawronganswertothequestionandanegativemarkof

om

(0.25)hasbeenallottedwhichinsteadcouldhavebeen(+1). The
StudentsweresupposedtoindicatetheUniversitywisepreferenceon

thebasisofMeritcumpreferencewhichwouldbeusedascriteriafor
allocatingtheseats.

On6June2015,RespondentNo.1issuedaNotification.

OnthebasisoftheNotification,thePetitioner'srankfellfrom258to

6/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm7922wpl1784.15.sxw

278. On 9 June 2015, Respondent No.1 published its first 1 st

rt

indicativeseatallocationlist.On10June2015,thePetitionerfiledits

C
ou

representationbeforeRespondentNo.1,settingoutthedetailsofthe
grievance along with the proper references and the reasoning and
therebyrequestedtoconsiderthesameattheearliest.Thegrievance
ofthePetitionerisinrespecttothefindingsofRespondentNo.1in

ig
h

termsofquestionsidno.1730,1708,1733,1828,1836,1826and

1882.

Admittedly,thePetitionerwasheardon15June2015by

ba
y

the Respondents' Expert,but not dealt with any of the question in

detailwithreferencetothematerialreferredandreliedasrecordedin
thedocuments/chartdated10June2015,markedXonthisrecord.

om

CLATproceededfurtherandhasbeenannouncingtheresults.

10

One Mr. Anand A. Nair, resident of Kerala filed a Writ

Petition bearing No. WP(C). No.17817 of 2015 before the Hon'ble

KeralaHighCourtatErnakulam,againstRespondentNo.1hereinand
otherRespondentsmentionedthereinonthesameissue.On15June
2015, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court at Ernakulam was pleased to

7/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm8922wpl1784.15.sxw

directRespondentNo.1hereintokeeptheissuanceof2 nd Allotment

rt

listforCLAT2015inabeyancefor2weeksandissuednoticetothe

C
ou

Respondents in that Petition to appear and file their replies to the

same. On 15 June 2015, Respondent No.1, as stated, in non
complianceoftheOrderoftheHon'bleKeralaHighCourt,Ernakulam
issued 2nd allotment list after payment of the counseling fee. The

ig
h

Petitionerhasparticipatedintheadmissionprocessallalongandhas
alsodepositedacounselingfeeofRs.50,000/(RupeesFiftyThousand

Only).ThePetitionerhasbeenallottedadmissionattheNationalLaw
University,Jodhpur. ThecaseofthePetitioneristhatbecauseofthe

ba
y

incorrectresponsesprovidedintheModelAnswersheet,thePetitioner
has lost out 7 marks and a much improved ranking, which would
enablehimtogetthroughthecollegeofhispreferenceasmentioned

om

intheAllotmentlist.

11

The relevant subsequent events and the schedule which

arenecessaryforfurtherdiscussionareasunder:
11

Dates for payment of counseling fee: 16th 19th June,

Thecandidates whosenameshavebeen 2015 (Tuesday
added in 2nd provisional allotment list Friday)
againstdroppedoutcandidates.

8/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm9922wpl1784.15.sxw

Last Date of withdrawal from the 19th June, 2015

AdmissionProcess.
(Friday)

13

Dates of locking of allotted seats or 16th 19th June,

exercising option for upgradation or for 2015
withdrawing from the Admission Process (TuesdayFriday)
againstsecondallotmentlist.

14

Publication of 3rd allotment list Date for 21st June, 2015

Payment of counseling fee: The (Sunday)21st23rd
candidates, whose names appear in 3rd June,

2015
allotmentlist.
(SundayTuesday)

15

Datesforadmissionagainstallotmentlist 24th 27th June,

to be completed by the participating 2015(Wednesday
NLU(s)
Saturday)

16

Dates for receiving details of vacancies up to 28th June,

fromtheparticipatingNLU(s)
2015(Sunday)

17

Publicationof 4th andfinalallotmentlist 1st July, 2015

withupgradedandwaitlistedcandidates (Wednesday)

18

Datesforadmissionagainst4th allotment upto2nd 4th July

list to be completed by the participating 2015 (Thursday
NLU(s)
Saturday)

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

rt

12

om

19

12

Date of closure of admission process by 6th July, 2015

CLAT2015office
(Monday)

ThePetitionerfiledthisWritPetitionon20June2015.In

viewoftheurgencyexpressed,wehaveheardthematterandpassed
followingorders,fromtimetotime.
On20June2015:
.
Heard. Issue notice of final disposal to the
respondents,returnableon23rdJune,2015.
9/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm10922wpl1784.15.sxw

ig
h

C
ou

rt

2
The petitioner after clearing his Class12th
Board examination by securing 94.15% from the
Maharashtra Higher Secondary State Board, has
given examinationofCommonLawAdmissionTest,
2015 (CLAT, 2015). Result of the same was
declared on 20th May, 2015. The petitioner has
securedarank258intheCLAT,2015.On6 thJune,
2015,therevisedlistwaspublishedandrespondent
No.1issuedanotificationbecauseofcomplaintsso
received. Becauseofthenotification,thepetitioner's
rank fell from 258 to 278. On 9 th June, 2015
respondent No. 1 published first indicative seat
allocation list. The petitioner filed its
representation / objection on 10th June, 2015 in
respectofthe7questions. Nohearingwasgivento
thepetitionerbyrespondents. Thepetitionerwaited
forthesame.

om

ba
y

3ApetitionwasfiledinKeralaHighCourtat
Ernakulamon15thJune,2015,onthebasisofsimilar
objection raised by the petitioner therein. Interim
orderwaspassedagainstrespondentNo.1.However,
as stated, in noncompliance of the same, on 15 th
June, 2015 itself 2nd list was published without
considering the objectionssoraised. The petitioner
beingresidentofMumbai,approachedthisCourton
19th June,2015. Inviewofurgencysoexpressedby
theCounselforthepetitioner,thepresentmatteris
kepttodayi.e.20th June,2015,inChamber. 3rd list
willbedeclaredbyrespondentNo.1,on21 st June,
2015. If the petitioner's objections are accepted /
considered, he will be in a position to get the
admissionindesiredcollegeaspertheprocedureso
announced, though the petitioner submitted fees
underprotest.
The declaration so filed by petitioner on 21st
May,2015isasunder:
10/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm11922wpl1784.15.sxw

C
ou

rt

I understand that my admission shall be

subject to the verification of the documents by the
allotted NLU(s) in respect of my claims about
eligibilityandreservation,ifany. Ialsounderstand
that my admission in case of my age exceeding 20
years (22 years in case of SC/ST/PWD) shall be
provisional and subject to final decision of the
appropriatecourtinthismatter.TherespondentNo.
1hasalreadydeclaredthattheallotment/admission
shallbesubjecttooutcomeofthepetition.

ig
h

4.
DuetoheavyraininMumbai,theStateaswell
asHighCourtofBombaydeclaredholidayonFriday
i.e. 19th June, 2015. 20th June, 2015 was the
workingSaturdaybutduetothesamereason,ithas
alsobeendeclaredasHoliday. Therefore,inviewof
urgency so expressed by the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the matter is
kepton20thJune,2015inChamber.

om

ba
y

5.
OnFriday,thisCourtpermittedthepetitioner
to serve copy of the petition on the contesting
respondentNo.1.Thestatementismadethat,office
ofrespondentNo.1hasrefusedtoacceptcopyofthe
writ petition. The petitioner undertakes to file
affidavit of service by Monday. However, pursis is
filedtodaystatingthereinaboutrejectionofserviceby
respondentNo.1.
6.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
took us through the averments so made including
theirstatementreferringtothe7questions. Asthe
othersideisabsentandthismatterrequiresurgent
attentionofalltheconcerned,weareinclinedtogive
one more opportunity to the respondents to place
beforeusthedecisiononthequestionsoraisedbythe
petitioner. Thesubmissionisthatastheaverments
andstatementsmadebythepetitioneraresimilarto
11/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm12922wpl1784.15.sxw

C
ou

rt

thetotheobjectionsoraisedinthejudgmentssocited
(2005)13SCC749and2002(3)BomCR219andin
such matters to avoid further complications, it is
desirable that further proceedings referring to the
finallistneedstobestayedimmediately. Therefore,
at this stage, keeping all points open including
contentionsraisedbythepetitioner,weareinclinedto
keepthismatteron23rd July,2015(HOB)forfinal
disposal.

ig
h

7.
Asofficeisclosedtoday,wedirectthepartiesto
actonthebasisofauthenticatedcopy/stenocopyof
thisorder.

ba
y

On23June2015

8.
Partiesareatlibertytocommunicatethisorder
byallpossiblemodesinadditiontoregularmodeof
service.Hamdastisalsopermitted.

om

.
This is in continuation of order dated 20 th
June,2015.
2
Consideringtheavermentsmade,thenameof
Respondent No.3 is deleted from the array of
Respondents.
2
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
RespondentNo.1,oninstructions,submittedthatas
thematteriscomingforthefirsttime,theywould
like to file a short affidavit referring to the
averments/objectionssoraisedregardingthoseseven
questions.AccordingtoRespondentNo.1,theExpert
Body hasalreadytakenadecisionevennotingthe
objectionssoraisedbythePetitionerandproceeded
furthertopublishfirstrevisedallocationliston9 th
June,2015,secondliston15 th June,2015. Third
allocation list was published on 21st June, 2015.
12/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm13922wpl1784.15.sxw

C
ou

rt

Based upon these lists so published, the concerned

candidates must have proceeded further including
payment of counseling fee. The Petitioner himself
paidtherequisitepaymentaftersecondlist.

ig
h

3
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
RespondentNo.1hasalsosubmittedthattheywould
liketotakeappropriatestepstocluballthematters
pendinginvariousHighCourtsincludingAllahabad,
Rajasthan and Kerala, apart from this petition, as
the issue is with regard to All India CLAT2015
examination.

4
ThePetitionerhasalsoplacedonrecordachart
givingreasonsforcorrectnessofchosenoptionswith
remarks and its sources. That chart is taken on
recordandmarked'X'foridentification.

om

ba
y

5
ThelearnedSeniorCounselappearingforthe
Petitionerhassubmittedthatacaseismadetogrand
an interim relief at least to the extent to stay of
further steps based upon the last list so published.
Thedatesofadmissionagainstallotmentlistwillbe
completedbyparticipatingNLU(s)from24 th to27th
June,2015.Thefourthandfinalallotmentlistwill
bepublishedon1stJuly,2015andadmissionagainst
fourthallotmentlistwillbecompletedfrom2ndto4th
July,2015,theadmissionprocesswillbeclosedon
6thJuly,2015.
6
However, considering the averments so made
andthetimesotakentofilepresentpetitionandthe
stages so crossed as recorded above and as other
students/candidates must have already proceeded
furtherbaseduponthelistssopublished,specifically
firstandsecondlist,wearenotinclinedtograntany
relief so prayed, unless we hear Respondent No.1
aftertheaffidavit/reply,whichtheyarefilingbyday
aftertomorrowi.e.25thJune,2015.
13/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm14922wpl1784.15.sxw

Standoverto25thJune,2015(HOB).

rt

TheRespondents,asnoted,havefiledshortreply/affidavit

C
ou

13

dated25June2015andexpressedtheirsubmissionsasunder,apart
frompreliminaryobjectionsaboutthemaintainability,delayandmis
joinder or nonjoinder and the scope of Judicial Review in such

ig
h

matters.

...

10. Thattheansweringrespondent,beforeadverting
totheissuesraisedbythepresentPetitioner,seekstobring
thefollowingfactstothekindnoticeofthisHon'bleCourt:

om

ba
y

f.
Expost the results, certain complaints were received
including that of the present Petitioner with regard to
certainquestionsintheexampaper. Itwasfoundthatin
most cases each person had complained about questions
which affect her/his result individually. However keeping
thelargercommoninterestofallcandidates,thosequestions
where a dispute was raised or a complaint was received,
werereconsideredbyapanelofexperts.Forthepurposesof
the confidentiality of examination process, the answering
respondentseekstocraveleavenottodisclosethemaneof
theexpertswhoreviewedthosecomplaints,suchdetailswill
bekeptreadyinasealedenvelopeforthekindperusalof
thisHon'bleCourt.
.
11. Specifically with regard to the representation of the
presentPetitionerdated10thofJune,2015,hechosetosend
it by speed post, which was received vide inward no.
1443/15 on 16.6.2015. At the same time,on 15 th June
14/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm15922wpl1784.15.sxw

rt

2015 the Petitioner's father came in person and met the

officials and served a copy of the representation dated
10.6.2015.

13

ig
h

C
ou

12. The Petitioner had raised dispute regarding 7

questions,outofwhich3werealreadyreconsideredbythe
panelofexperts.Yet,toensurefairnessanddueprocess,the
fourotherquestionswerealsoreferredtoexperts,whogave
theiropinionrejectingtheobjectionsraisedbythePetitioner.
Sincethenameoftheexpertscannotberevealedduetothe
requirementofmaintainingcompleteconfidentiality;acopy
of the said proceedings will be kept ready for the kind
perusaloftheHon'bleCourt.
..
.

ba
y

a.
It is submitted that all the questions which the
petitioner has mentioned were, interalia, reexamined by
experts after receiving the representations from certain
candidates.

om

b.
Based upon the recommendations of the expert
committee, Question No.35 (Question ID 1744) was
nullifiedandonemarkwasgiventoallcandidateswhohave
appeared in the examination and in Question no. 186
(Question ID 1907) equal marks were given to all
candidateswhohavechoseneitheroftheoption'C'or'D'as
theircorrectoption. Thisisdulyreflectedonallstudents
individual question papers also, and is accordingly
incorporatedintherevisedranklist.
c.
Theexpertsdidnotfindanydiscrepancyinanyother
questions.

14

AfterhearingthelearnedSeniorcounselappearingforthe

Petitioner,tomakepositionclearsofarasthemeritsofthequestions
15/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm16922wpl1784.15.sxw

soraisedsupportedbytheresources,wehavepassedthefollowing

15

C
ou

2015.Noadditionalclassificatoryaffidavitfiledtillthisdate.

rt

orderason 25June2015. Thematterwasadjournedto30June

On 25 June 2015, this Court has passed the following

order:

ig
h

.
HeardlearnedSenior Counsel appearingon
behalfoftherespectiveparties.

2.
In continuation of earlier orders dated 20th
June,2015and23rdJune,2015.

om

ba
y

3.
Wehavealsogonethroughthefilessubmitted
bythelearnedSeniorCounselforrespondentNo.1,
including a report of the Expert Committee, as
referredtoinparagraphNos.10(f),11and12of
theshortaffidavitfiledbyrespondentNo.1dated
25th June,2015. Havingperusedthesame,weare
of the view that, at this stage, for passing any
further orders, it is desirable that the concerned
respondents should get the clarification from the
Expert Committee referring to the objections so
raised by the petitioner, supported by the
resources/sourcesandtheremarksonthepagesto
the petition from 128 to 133
th
(representation/objections dated 10
June, 2015),
whicharealreadyprovidedtorespondentNo.1.
4.
Importance of additions or deductions of
marks can not be overlooked in any competitive
examinations. Here as stated, there are 7 such
answers,whichmayaffectthemeritofthepetitioner
orsuchotherstudents.
16/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm17922wpl1784.15.sxw

C
ou

rt

5.
An envelope, containing Expert Committees
recommendationsgivenbyDr.RamManoharLohiya
National Law University, Lucknow, is placed on
record.ThesameisopenedintheCourt.Wehave
gonethroughthesameandagainsealedit.Thesaid
envelopebekeptinthecustodyofProthonotaryand
SeniorMaster/Registrar(O.S.),HighCourt,Bombay
andbemadeavailabletothisCourtasandwhen
required.
Standoverto30thJune,2015(HOB).

ig
h

6.

7.
Partiestoactonthebasisofanauthenticated
copy.
Weareinclinedtorecordnow,asbysinglelineranswers,

16

theexperthasdecidedtheobjectionsandretainedtheirpublishedkey

ba
y

answers. We could not left the issue unanswered/unattended like

this, as the process of admission itself involved, thousands of law

om

students. Even after going through the objections and the answer
keysandthesupportivematerialplacedonrecord,weareconvinced

thatacaseismadeoutforreasonedexplanation/clarification.Weare
notconvincedbythesinglelinerorderoftheexpertsasthequestions
involved are of general nature and certainly not technical or
complicatedinnature. Wearenotexpressinganythingonmeritsof
these objections/questions in this Writ jurisdiction. Let the
Respondents' Expert Panel/Committee deal with the same in
17/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm18922wpl1784.15.sxw

17

C
ou

withreasonsandtakefurthersteps/actionsaccordingly.

rt

accordancewithlaw,attheirownlevel,byansweringtheobjections

We have noted the submissions of the learned Senior

counselappearingfortheRespondentsincludingparagraphNo.16of
theaffidavitreferringtothefollowingobservations:

ig
h

16. The answering respondent relies on the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kanpur
UniversityVsSamirGuptareportedinA.I.R.1983SC
1230inparas16&17:

om

ba
y

Weagreethatthekeyanswershouldbeassumdto
be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it
shouldnotbeheldtobewrongbyaninferentialprocess
ofreasoningorbyaprocessofrationalization.
Itmustbeclearlydemonstratedtobewrong,thatisto
say,itmustbesuchasnoreasonablebodyofmenwell
versedintheparticularsubjectwouldregardascorrect.
(Para16).

Therefore,asthecaseismadeout,weareinclinedtointerfere

withtheexaminationprocessofCLAT2015.

18

The learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent

No.1,expressedthattheyarerequired3to4moredaystoappoint
Experts Panel/Committee to clarify those questions and to pass
appropriateorder,assomeoftheexpertsareoutofIndia.Thewhole
18/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm19922wpl1784.15.sxw

processrequiresatleasttwoweekstime.Theyareunabletotakeany

rt

reasoned decision on the objections so raised immediately. The

C
ou

references so recorded in order dated 25 June 2015 remained

unansweredwithreasons,tillthisdate.Thetimeisshort,inviewof
the schedule so fixed and even for further follow up by all.
Consideringthesituationandinvolvementofthepublicatlarge,we

ig
h

had granted time, so that appropriate decision could be taken by

RespondentNo.1CLAToftheirown.Thesituationisthatfurthertime

isrequiredtofileadditionalaffidavit/clarificationtotheobjectionsso
raised.Wearedeclinedtograntfurthertime,asthiswoulddefinitely

ba
y

hamper the whole admissionprocedure andthe prescribedtimeso

announcedforotherrelatedpurposes,as6July2015isthelastdate
evenfortheclosureofadmissionprocessbyCLAT2015.Evenifthey

om

submittheclarification/decisionof7questionssoraised,considering
the judicial power and the scope, it will be difficult to take final

decisiontoselectand/orgrantmarks,positiveand/ornegative,tothe
questions/answersgivenbythePetitionerand/ortheothersimilarly
situatedstudentsand/ortorevisethewholemeritlist.Itisforthe
concerned Respondents to take decision after clarification and/or
revaluationand/orreassessmentofthequestions/answers.

19/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm20922wpl1784.15.sxw

Strikingly, there are various such issues/objections have

rt

19

C
ou

been raisedin the variousHighCourts,includingAllahabad,Keral,

Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. All these matters are revolving
aroundvariousobjectionsofCLAT2015. Thedecision,evenifany,
given by the one Authority and/or one Court, it would not serve

ig
h

and/orsolvetheproblems,asitisquestionofrelyingonmeritcum
preference basis for allotting admission/seats to the respective

University/college.ItisfortheRespondents,ultimatelytotakefinal
decisionintheinterestofall,attheearliest.Nostepstakenorpointed

ba
y

outtocluballthesependingmattersatoneplace/Court,asrecorded
inorderdated23June2015.

om

20

Thereareotherquestionsasstatedtobewrong,whichare

subjectmatterofotherPetitionsinotherHighCourts,whichcannot

beoverlookedevenbyRespondentNo.1'sExpertPanel.Anyway,ifthe
answerswhichtheyhaveannounced/publishedarecorrect,theyare
freetotakedecision,whichwillbewithoutprejudicetotherightsand
contentions of the parties. But, if the questions so raised by the
Petitionerandiftheissuesaredecidedinhisfavourand/orinfavour

20/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm21922wpl1784.15.sxw

of such similarly situated students, there is no reason that the

rt

concernedRespondentsshouldnotdecideand/ortakedecisiontore

C
ou

valuate and/or reassess the marks and prepared the merit lists in
accordancewithlaw.

21

However, considering the scope and purpose of writ

ig
h

jurisdiction,themeritsofthoseanswersandfurthercauseofactionbe
decided and/or considered by the Respondents' Expert

Panel/Committee. However, considering the totality of the matter,

apartfrompendencyofthelitigationsinvariousotherHighCourtsa

ba
y

caseismadeoutforappropriateorder.Itisalreadyrecordedthatall
theseadmissionswouldbesubjecttofurtherorderoftheCourt.Such
typeofstatements/declarations,asstated,arerecordedforallother

om

studentsalso. WehavegrantedtimetotheRespondentstorespond
immediately even on the merits of the matter. As no response is

comingpositivelyandtheystillwanttime,therefore,intheinterestof
justice, instead of halting the whole process, we are directing
Respondent No.1The Convenor CLAT2015 to appoint an Expert
Panel/Committee and take decision on the objections so raised in
accordancewithlawandpassappropriateorderaccordingly.Thisin

21/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm22922wpl1784.15.sxw

nowaytomeanand/orrestricttheRespondentstodecidetheother

rt

disputablequestions,soraisedbythePetitionersand/orsuchother

C
ou

personssothattheappropriatefinaldecisioncanbetaken,basicallyin
respectof7objectionssoraisedbythePetitionerand/orforallthe
similarly situated persons/students to avoid multiplicity and the

22

ig
h

confusioninthemindofall,atearliest.

Normally,thereisnoquestiontointerferewiththesingle

linerExpertPanel/Committeedecision.Therefore,insteadofpassing
any interim order, we have asked the explanation from the

ba
y

Respondents,butaftergoingthroughthesameandafterconsidering
thesubmissionsofthelearnedcounselappearingforthepartiesand
specificallytheobjectionsoraisedwithsupportingmaterial,weareof

om

theopinionthattheExpertPanel/Committeemusttakedecisionwith
reasonssothateverybodyconcernedwillbeawareofthedecisionso

takenand/oranswersogivenbythemandincludingcorrectnessof
Respondents'answerkeys.

23

The submission is made by the learned Senior counsel

appearingforthePetitioner,referringtotheJudgmentssocitedabove

22/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm23922wpl1784.15.sxw

thatacaseismadeouttopasstheordertotheextentofsettingaside

rt

allthelistssopreparedandtointerferewiththewholeprocessofthe

C
ou

examinationsoconductedbyCLAT2015. However,consideringthe
scopeandpurpose,includingthejudgmentssocitedandreferredand
as there are issues withregardtothe certainquestionsandasthe
Respondentshaveapowerandauthoritytoreassessandreevaluate

ig
h

all such objections, therefore, instead of disturbing the whole

examination process, the Expert Panel/Committee and/or the

Respondent Authority may pass appropriate order for revaluation

and/orreassessmentofthelist,includingmaintainingtheanswerkey

ba
y

publishedbythem.Ultimately,itisfortheRespondentsAuthorityto
take decision at the earliest toavoidfurthercomplicationsandthe
confusioninthemindsofthepeopleatlarge.Suchconfusionatthis

om

stageitselfrequiredtobecorrectedbyalltheconcerned.

24

The basic issues with regard to the rights and/or

entitlement of students referring to the marks, positive and/or

negative,inthiscompetitiveexaminationisquitesettled. Onemark
canmakeand/ormarthecareerofstudentsofhischoice,specifically
when his wish and/or desire, based upon the hardwork and/or

23/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:45 :::

ssm24922wpl1784.15.sxw

endeavourhe/shehasmade,whichneedstoberespectedbyall.The

rt

legitimate expectation is clear that the student if has answered

C
ou

correctlythecompulsoryquestions,heisentitledforthelegitimate
marks.Therejectionanddenialofsuchmark,ifansweriscorrect,is
definitelyunacceptabletoanyone. Wearenotinclinedtooverlook

examinations/courses.

ThelearnedSeniorcounselappearingforthepartieshave

25

ig
h

this, in this era of competition, at entrance level of any

cited various Judgments for and/or against in support of their

ba
y

contentions.InKanpurUniversity,ThroughViceChancellorandothers
Vs.SamirGuptaandothers1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt
withasituationofsimilartype.Amultiplechoiceobjectivetypetest

om

was conducted, the key answers supplied by the papersetter were

wrong.Itisheldthat,thestudentsisentitledtofullmarksifanswer

iscorrectandthecorrectnessneedstobeascertainedfromstandard
andprescribedtextbooksandnotmerelyonthebasisofinferences.
Theissueofpublicationofkeyanswersalongwiththeresultofthe
testwasalsoinissueandultimately,afteracceptingthecandidates'
casehasrecordedasunder:
1 (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 309

24/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm25922wpl1784.15.sxw

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

rt

15
The findings of the High Court raise a
questionofgreatimportancetothestudentcommunity.
Normally,onewouldbeinclinedtotheview,especiallyif
onehasbeenapapersetterandanexaminer,thatthekey
answerfurnishedbythepapersetterandacceptedbythe
University as correct, should not be allowed to be
challenged.Onewayofachievingitisnottopublishthe
keyansweratall.IftheUniversityhadnotpublishedthe
key answer along with the result of the test, no
controversywouldhaveariseninthiscase.Butthatisnot
acorrectwayoflookingatthesematterswhichinvolve
thefutureofhundredsofstudentswhoareaspirantsfor
admissiontoprofessionalcourses.Ifthekeyanswerwere
kept secret in this case, the remedy would have been
worsethanthediseasebecause,somanystudentswould
havehadtosuffertheinjusticeinsilence.Thepublication
of the key answer has unravelled an unhappy state of
affairstowhichtheUniversityandtheStateGovernment
mustfindasolution.Theirsenseoffairnessinpublishing
thekeyanswerhasgiventhemanopportunitytohavea
closer look at the system of examinations which they
conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the
humansystem.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately, directed the

om

Authorities to grant the benefits of the marks and also directed to

admitthestudentstotheMBBSCourse.

26

In Manish Ujwal and others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand

SaraswatiUniversityandothers2 theApexCourthasdirectedtogive
marks/reliefswherebyafternotingerroneouskeyanswersinsimilar

2 (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 744

25/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm26922wpl1784.15.sxw

type multiple choice objective test. The Supreme Court has also

rt

directedtoreevaluateallthequestionstopreparemeritlistonthe

directedtopublishafreshmeritlist.

27

C
ou

basisofcorrectedmarks/numbers,ifany.TheSupremeCourthasalso

InGuruNanakDevUniversityVs.SaumilGargandothers

3,

ig
h

theApexCourtwhiledealingwiththemultiplechoiceobjectivetype
testwherethekeyanswersprovidedbytheauthoritywereincorrect

anddirectedtheuniversitytoreevaluatetheanswersofthequestions
soreferred.TheSupremeCourt,ultimatelyhasdirectedtogivemarks

ba
y

to the students who attempted to answer those objectionable

questions. Itisobservedtogivecredittothosewhoattemptedthe

om

objectionablequestionsorsomeofthem.

28

The Division Bench of this Court in Jimmy Abraham

ThomasandOrs.Vs.TheStateofMaharashtraandOrs. 4byoverruling
the preliminaryobjectionthatdisturbinganyexaminationprocess,
wouldhavelargescaledislocation,asmanystudentsmusthavetaken
theiradmissionindifferentcollegesaspertheallotmentssoreferred
3 (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 749
4 2002(3)BomCR219

26/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm27922wpl1784.15.sxw

above. They must have paid fees also. However, ultimately by

rt

allowing the Writ Petition, this Court directed to publish and

C
ou

implementtherevisedmeritlistandorderedtograntadmissiontothe
students strictly in accordance revised list to the colleges of their
choices.

Inthepresentcasethesubmissionisalsomadetoquash

ig
h

29

thewholeprocessbyrelyingontheSupremeCourtJudgment Tanvi

SarwalVs.CentralBoardofSecondaryEducationandOrs5.Wearenot
inclined to accept this submission to avoid further delay and the

ba
y

admission process. The objections so filed, if decided for and/or

against,theRespondentsand/oritsAuthority,wouldbeinpositionto
takedecisionbeingExpertPanel/Committee, torevisethelistafter

om

due assessment, if objections are correct, and if the objections are

rejected by giving reasons, they can maintain the merit lists so

prepared.Ultimately,theyhavetotakedecisionbaseduponthefacts
andthelaw.

30

ThelearnedSeniorcounselappearingfortheRespondents

asreferredandreadanddistinguishtheJudgmentssocitedbythe
5 Writ Petition (Civil) No.298 / 2015, Dated 15th June, 2015. (Supreme Court)

27/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm28922wpl1784.15.sxw

PetitionerandalsoreliedupontheSupremeCourtJudgmentinAsha

C
ou

Courtinpara31observedthat:

rt

Vs. Pt. B.D.Sharma University ofHealth Sciencesandors6. The Apex

om

ba
y

ig
h

31
..... Though there can be rarest of
rare cases or exceptional circumstanceswhere the
courts may have to mould the relief and make
exceptiontothecutoffdateof30thSeptember,but
inthosecases,theCourtmustfirstreturnafinding
thatnofaultisattributabletothecandidate,the
candidatehaspursuedherrightsandlegalremedies
expeditiouslywithout any delay andthatthereis
fault on thepart oftheauthoritiesandapparent
breachofsomerules,Regulationsandprinciplesin
the process of selection and grant of admission.
Where denial of admission violates the right to
equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it
wouldbecompletelyunjustandunfairtodenysuch
exceptional relief to the candidate. [Refer Arti
Sapru and Ors. v. State of J and K and Ors.
MANU/SC/0065/1981(1981)2SCC484;Chavi
Mehrotra v. Director General Health Services
MANU/SC/0635/1994 :(1994)2SCC370;and
Aravind Kumar Kankanev.State ofUPandOrs.
MANU/SC/0416/2001:(2001)8SCC355.

31

BaseduponthisJudgment,wehavepassedthisorder.

WehavealsorecentlyinMs.RuchashreeSangole&Ors.Vs.

Director,MedicalEducation&Research(DMER)&Anr.WritPetition(L)
No.1681of2015dated12June2015, directedtheStatetoaddone
6 AIR 2012 SC 3396

28/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm29922wpl1784.15.sxw

markasExpertsalsoconcededtothepositiontoaddonemarktoall

rt

those students who attempted to answer the questions having two

32

C
ou

probableanswers.

Thedelayand/orlaches,evenifany,inthepresentcase

specifically when the similar objections are raised in other High

ig
h

Courts,buttheRespondentsunabletotakedecisionbyitsownandas
thisrequiredconsideration,theExpertPanel/Committeeneedstotake

decisionwithreasons.Therefore,thecoursewhichwehaveadopted
in the interest of all, by directing the Respondents who though

ba
y

independentlycannottakedecisionofitsown,beingnotexpertinthe
field, and required to appoint Expert Panel/Committee to take
decision. Wedirectthemtodosoandcompletetheprocesswithout

om

furtherdelay.

33

Therefore,takingoverallviewofthematter,wearealsoof

the view that the case is made out to appoint Expert

Panel/Committee,asearlyaspossible,preferablywithin5daysfrom
todayandrefertheobjections,7questionsorotherconnectedissues
for clarification/explanation immediately.

The Expert

29/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm30922wpl1784.15.sxw

Panel/Committee to take decision with reasons on all the

rt

objections/questions, within 3 days thereafter. The Expert

C
ou

Panel/Committee to take decision and actions for repreparing or

revising the merit list of candidates (CLAT15) after revaluation
and/orassessment,ifrequired,orpassordeclaresuchresults/merit
listimmediatelywithin4daysthereafter.Itismadeclearthat(CLAT

ig
h

2015),thewholemeritlistandallsubsequentprocesstherefore,will
besubjecttooutcomeoftheExpertPanel/Committee'sdecision,so

referred above, which will be taken as early as possible to avoid

ba
y

furtherdelayofanykind.

34

Itismadeclearthatinviewofabove,andtheSupreme

Court Judgment so referred, we are inclined to observe that all

om

admissions of CLAT2015 as already recorded subject to the final

decision of CLATRespondent No.1 after completion of above

formalitiessoordered.

35

Wehavetoexpressthat,inthebackground,thereisno

choicebuttopassthefollowingorderwhichmayaffecteventhelists
soalreadydeclaredand/orpublishedbutifthecaseismadeoutandif

30/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm31922wpl1784.15.sxw

ultimate decision goes in favour of the Petitioner and/or similarly

rt

situatedperson,forrevisionand/orrevaluationorreassessment,the

C
ou

Respondentshavetotakeeffectivestepsevenofrevaluationandre

appraisalandrevisionofthelistattheearliest.Wearenotinclinedto
set aside the whole process, as revaluation and reassessment is
possible and effective way, which will save money and time of

ig
h

everyone. Therefore,intheinterestofjusticeandtoavoidfurther
delay,weareinclinedtodisposeofthepresentWritPetitionsothat

ba
y

thisHighCourt.

themattercanproceedfurther,insteadofkeepingissuespendingin

36

Inthisworldofcompetition,everystrataoftheSociety,is

involved. It is necessary to take effective steps at every stage of

om

conductingsuchcompetitiveexaminations;includingallpreparation
and/orsettingupofquestions/keyanswers/objections,hearingand

declarationofmeritlist.Theeffectivecorrectivemeasureneedstobe
provided for every stage of such examination under the
guidance/supervisionofexpertsinthesubjects.

37

Havingoncerecordedabovereasons,weareinclinedto

31/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm32922wpl1784.15.sxw

observe that all similarly situated students/candidates who have

rt

attempted these questions, cannot be deprived of their respective

C
ou

marks, if any, merely because, technically all other affected parties

havenotbeenheard. TheactionoftheRespondents,ifcontraryto
law, impermissible, discriminating, arbitrary, the High Court is
empowered to invoke the constitutional provisions, hence the

Therefore,weareinclinedtopassthefollowingorder.

38

ig
h

followingorder.

ORDER

Respondent No. 1CLAT to appoint an Expert

ba
y

a)

Panel/Committee, as early as possible, preferably

om

within 5 daysfromtoday andrefer 7objections/

b)

questions or other connected issues, for

clarification/explanation, for their consideration
immediately.
TheExpertPanel/Committeetoclarifyand/ortake
decision with reasons on all the
objections/questions, as recorded within 3 days
thereafter,byfollowingthedueprocessoflaw.

32/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::

ssm33922wpl1784.15.sxw

c)

The Expert Panel/Committee to take effective

rt

decision and actions for repreparing and/or

C
ou

revising the merit list of candidates, if necessary,

(CLAT15) afterrevaluationand/orassessment,if
required,orpassordeclaresuchresults/meritlist
immediately,within4daysthereafter.

Itismadeclearthat(CLAT2015),thewholemerit

ig
h

d)

list and all subsequent process, will be subject to

outcomeoftheExpertPanel/Committee'sdecision,
soreferredabove,whichwillbetakenasearlyas

ba
y

possiblebyalltheconcerned,toavoidfurtherdelay
ofanykind.
WritPetitionisaccordinglydisposedof,withliberty.

f)

Ruledisposedofaccordingly.

g)

Thereshallbenoorderastocosts.

om

e)

Thepartiestoactonthebasisofanauthenticatedcopyofthis
order.

(V.L.ACHLIYA,J.)

(ANOOPV.MOHTA,J.)

33/33

::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 08:55:46 :::