Post on 24-Oct-2014
transcript
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL ORIGINAL JUSRISDICTION
C.W.P. NO. OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Nipun Gautam
R/o C-587, LIG DDA flats, East of Loni
Road,
Shahdara, Delhi – 110093
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Convener,
Core Committee
Common Law Admission Test,
2012
(Notice to be served through)
The Vice-Chancellor, National Law
University,
NH-65, Nagaur Road, Mandore,
Jodhpur – 342304 (Rajasthan)
2. The Convener,
Implementation Committee
Common Law Admission Test,
2012
(Notice to be served through)
National Law University,
NH-65, Nagaur Road, Mandore,
Jodhpur – 343304, (Rajasthan)
...Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SEEKING DIRECTIONS TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION TO (I) RE-EVALUATE THE QUESTIONS IN THE
OMR ANSWER SHEETS WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTIONS WHEREIN
THE ANSWERS PROVIDED IN THE ANSWER KEY PUBLISHED BY THE
RESPONDENTS ARE ERRONEOUS, (II) TO PROHIBIT THE THIRD LIST
WHICH MAY BE PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS IF REQUIRED IN THE
EVENING OF 20.06.2012 FROM BEING PUBLISHED TILL THE RE-
EVALUATION AS ENUNCIATED ABOVE IS NOT DONE AND (III) IF THE
PROCESSING OF THE RTI APPLICATIONS SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE RESPONDENTS MAY BE EXPEDITED
To
The Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and His Companion
Judges of Hon’ble High Court.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court
by way of the present petition under its extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved due to
there being some discrepancies in the Answer Key which was published
by the respondent No. 1/respondent No. 2 on the Common Law
Admission Test website http://www.clat.ac.in/qbanskey.aspx, wherein
there were some (i) questions in respect of which the option shown to
be correct in the Answer Key is incorrect and instead another option is
correct and (ii) questions in respect of which there are more than one
correct option and (iii) questions in respect of which the answer in the
Answer Key is debatable. The petitioner is convinced that his marks
could increase if the OMR Answer Sheets had beenevaluated on the
basis of the Answer Key published on the CLAT website which
contained the aforesaid discrepancies when the results were
announced on 28.05.2012 and that this increase might just assist the
petitioner in making it to the CLAT cut-off list for admission to any of
the National Law Universities whose admission is governed by the
Common Law Admission Test 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “CLAT”
for the sake of convenience) since the petitioner has missed the cut-off
marks by a small margin.
The petitioner prays, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus, or
such other writ as may be issued by this Hon’ble Court directing the
respondent to re-evaluate the questions in the Optical Mark Recognition
Answer Sheets (hereinafter referred to as “OMR Answer Sheets” for the
sake of convenience) wherein the answers provided in the Answer Key
published by the respondent No. 1/respondent No. 2 are erroneous.
2. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and a resident ofC-587, LIG DDA
flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi – 110093. The petitioner may
also be served through counsel, during the pendency of the present
proceedings and the address of his counsel is as follows:
Vikrant Pachnanda
Chamber 423,
Chambers’ Block,
Delhi High Court.
3. That a consortium of Universities which have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, by which they have agreed that a
Common Entrance Test for their undergraduate and post graduate
degree courses in law by the name and style of “COMMON LAW
ADMISSION TEST” shall be conducted annually, and admission of
students in all the universities in the consortium shall be on the basis of
the results secured in CLAT. Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding
is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure – P/1. Each year, the
administration of CLAT, including the preparation of a rank list and
allotment of seats in various National Law Universities according to that
rank list, is conducted by a representative of one of the participating
National Law Universities designated the Convener of the Common Law
Admission Test. The respondents, having conducted CLAT during the
present year, would be amenable to the extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
insofar as it relates to (i) re-evaluation of the questions whose answers
provided in the Answer Key published by CLAT are erroneous, (ii)
prohibit the third list from being published by CLAT if required by them
till the aforesaid re-evaluation is not done and (iii) to instruct the Public
Information Officer to expedite processing of the RTI applications sent
by the petitioner.
4. That the brief facts leading to the present Writ Petition are as follows:
a. The petitioner appeared in the CLAT exam held on 13.05.2012, and
secured an All India Rank of 1709 in the General category with a
score of 119 out of 200 marks when the results of the said exam
were declared by the CLAT Committee on 28.05.2012. Copy of the
Admit Card of the petitioner for appearing in the said exam is
annexed herewith as Annexure – P/2 and copy of the Result of the
petitioner is attached herewith as Annexure – P/3.
b. The petitioner was literally shocked on seeing his results and sent an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as “RTI Act” for the sake of convenience) on 31.05.2012 in
order to obtain a copy of his question paper booklet and OMR answer
sheet so that he could analyse the mistakes his mistakes which he
had committed in the said exam. A copy of the said RTI application is
annexed herewith as Annexure-P/4.
c. The respondent No. 1/respondent No. 2 published the CLAT 2012
Question Paper booklets along with the Answer Key for all 4 sets to
the same on its website http://www.clat.ac.in/qbanskey.aspx on
08.12.2012. However, there were some discrepancies in the said
Answer Key since there were some (i) questions in respect of which
the option shown to be correct in the Answer Key is incorrect and
instead another option is correct and (ii) questions in respect of
which there are more than one correct option and (iii) questions in
respect of which the answer in the Answer Key is debatable.
d. The petitioner attempted Test Booklet Series A out of the 4 sets
which were provided to the examinees for writing the said
examination and therein published on the CLAT website as
mentioned above. A copy of the said question paper booklet and
answer key are attached herein as Annexure –P/5 (Colly). The
following were the (i) questions in respect of which the option
shown to be correct in the Answer Key is incorrect and instead
another option is correct and (ii) questions in respect of which there
are more than one correct option and (iii) questions in respect of
which the answer in the Answer Key is debatable:
e. (i) In question no. 56, the answer provided in the Answer Key
published by CLAT on its website as mentioned above is option-a i.e.
Vijay Amritraj. However, the correct answer should be option-d i.e.
Ashok Amritraj since Ashok Amritraj was a tennis player whose
highest singles ranking in the world was 277 as on 02.07.1977 as
per the ATP tennis rankings which governs the men’s tennis tour. A
copy of the tennis profile of Ashok Amritraj from the ATP tennis
website is attached herein as Annexure-P/6. Thereafter, Ashok
Amritraj turned into a film producer producing over 100 films under
the film production House namely Hyde Park Entertainment. A copy
of the printout from the website of Hyde Park Entertainment which
shows Ashok Amritraj as having produced over 100 films is attached
herein as Annexure-P/7.
(ii) In question no. 74, the answer provided in the Answer Key is
option-c i.e. United Nations Children’s Fund. However, the correct
option should have been an option has not been proved for in the
question paper booklet which should have stated that the answer is
both option-a and option-c i.e. United Nations Development
Programme and United Nations Children’s Fund. The association of
both the UNDP and UNICEF with the Government of India to launch a
publicity campaign for census 2011 was announced by the Registrar
General and Census Commissioner of India vide circular bearing
circular no. 17 dated 03.03.2010. A copy of the said circular is
attached herein as Annexure-P/8. Therefore, either this question
should be deleted for the purpose of evaluation or the examinees
should be given marks for both option-a and option-c.
(iii.) In question no. 86, the answer provided in the Answer Key is
option-c i.e. UNESCO. However, the correct answer should be option-
b i.e. UNICEF. This was announced by UNICEF on 10.08.2010 and has
also been published on their website. A copy of the said
announcement from UNICEF’s website is attached herein as
Annexure- P/9.
(iv.) In question no. 127, the answer provided in the Answer Key is
option-c i.e. People with High Cholesterol do not eat cheese.
However, the correct answer should be option-d i.e. none. This is
because the two statements which are assumed to be true as per the
said question are (1) Cheese is bad for people with high cholesterol
and (2) Sumeet does not eat cheese. Therefore, just because cheese is
bad for people with high cholesterol cannot lead to a logical
conclusion that people with high cholesterol do not eat cheese.
(v.) In question no. 193, the answer provided in the Answer Key is
option-b. However, due to the ambiguous nature of the question
since no legal principle has been mentioned, option-a could have also
been a correct answer. Therefore, either this question should be
deleted for the purpose of evaluation or the examinees should be
given marks for both option-a and option-b.
(vi.) In question no. 197, the answer provided in the Answer Key is
option-d. However, the correct answer should be option-a i.e. Article
14 to 18 and not just Articles 14 to 16. This is because Articles 17 and
18 of the Constitution of India which prohibit untouchability and
abolition of titles respectively also guarantee the citizens of India the
right to equality thereby upholding the spirit of the Preamble to the
Constitution. Further, in the case of State Of Karnataka vs Appa
Balu Ingale and Others, AIR 1993 SC 1126, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India categorically held that
“The thrust of Article 17 and the Act is to liberate the society
from blind and ritualistic adherence and traditional beliefs
which lost all legal or moral base. It seeks to establish new
ideal for society - equality to the Dalits, at par with general
public, absence of disabilities, restrictions or prohibitions on
grounds of caste or religion, availability of opportunities and
a sense of being a participant in the main stream of national
life.”
f. On seeing the aforesaid mistakes in the Answer Key and the
probability that the questions in the said examination were
evaluated by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the said Answer
Key, the petitioner tried to contact the officials overseeing the said
examination by using the CLAT helpline numbers mentioned on the
CLAT website so that he could (i) bring to their knowledge that there
were discrepancies in the Answer Key, (ii) request them to re-
evaluate the aforesaid questions based on correct answers since he
was confident that his marks could increase if the same was done
and (iii) to expedite the processing of his RTI application within 48
hours so that he could analyse his question paper and OMR answer
sheet before the next list of candidates who were admitted
provisionally came out. A copy of the page on the CLAT website
which mentions the helpline numbers is attached herewith as
Annexure- P/10. However no one wither responded to one of the
numbers i.e. (0291) 2577044 or the number kept constantly coming
busy, the other three numbers i.e. 2577045, 2577138, 2577526,
came as being temporarily out of service.
g. On 11.06.2012, the petitioner sent an email to the CLAT helpdesk at
the email address helpdesk@clat.ac.in which was provided in the
Contact Us link on the CLAT website stating that there were
discrepancies in the Answer Key published by CLAT on their website
and that a re-evaluation of the incorrect questions would have to be
done. However, the petition did not receive any reply from any CLAT
official. A copy of the aforesaid email is attached herein as
Annexure-P/11.
h. On 12.06.2012, the Provisional Admission List Institution Wise with
reshuffling was published on the CLAT website. A copy of the said list
is annexed herewith as Annexure-P/12. The petitioner again tried
calling the helpline numbers but was unable to get through the said
numbers. On the same day, the petitioner sent another RTI
application to the respondents requesting them to provide him with
a copy of his question paper and OMR answer sheets. A copy of the
said RTI application is attached herewith as Annexure-P/13. It is
further submitted that the next day, the petitioner sent an email to
the respondents requesting them to expedite his RTI applications
within 48 hours since the aforesaid admission list also stated that a
third list may be declared by CLAT if required in the evening of
20.06.2012. A copy of the said email is annexed herein as Annexure-
P/14.
5. That a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Gunjan Sinha
Jain v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, W.P. (C) 449/2012
which was decided recently on 09.04.2012 held that the Answer Key
would have to be corrected and the OMR answer sheets would have to
be re-evaluated with regard to questions in respect of which the option
shown to be correct in the Answer Key is incorrect and instead another
option as determined by the said bench is correct. The Hon’ble Court
further also stated that (i) questions in respect of which the Answer Key
was debatable or (ii) questions in respect of which the answer in the
Answer Key is debatable would have to be removed from the purview of
the examination.
6. That the aforesaid decision was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Pallav Mongia v. Reg. General Delhi High
Court and another, Civil Appeal No. 4794 of 2012 arising out of SLP
(Civil) No. 17304 of 2012, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court issued
directions in the light of the aforesaid High Court order directing the
deletion of certain questions and answers thereof and for revaluation of
the answer sheets accordingly. The Hon’ble Court directed any
candidate whether he had approached the court or not, who has secured
equal or higher marks than the last candidate who has been permitted
to take the mains examination of the Delhi Judicial Service, be permitted
to participate in the main examination. Copy of the aforesaid order of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is attached herewith as Annexure-
P/15.
7. That therefore, the respondents are obliged to correct the Answer Key
and to revaluate the OMR answer sheets would with regard to questions
in respect of which the option shown to be correct in the Answer Key is
incorrect and instead another option as determined by the said bench is
correct as enunciated above. It is further submitted that the
respondents are also obliged to remove from the purview of the CLAT
examination 2012, (i) questions in respect of which the Answer Key was
debatable or (ii) questions in respect of which the answer in the Answer
Key is debatable as also enunciated above.
8. That after the re-evaluation is done as stated above, the petitioner is
hopeful that his marks got by him in the said examination may increase
which could result in him clearing a seat and thereby having a chance to
get selected to any of the National Law Universities participating in the
said examination. As mentioned above, the petitioner scored 119 marks
whereas the cut-off marks for the second list as mentioned above which
was declared on the CLAT website was 125. Therefore, the declaration
of the third-list should be stayed by the respondents till the aforesaid
revaluation is done. Accordingly a revised third list may then be
declared thereafter since there is a possibility of students who would
have otherwise missed the cut-off in the third list as well to be included
in the revised list once the said revaluation is done by the respondents.
9. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of
Secondary Education and Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay and ors.,
(2011) 8 SCC 497, has held that when a candidate participates in an
examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it
to an examining body for evaluation and declaration of result, the
answer book is a record as per section 2(i) of the RTI Act. The Hon’ble
Apex Court further held that when an answer-book was evaluated by an
examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer book
became a record containing an opinion of the examiner and therefore,
the evaluated answer-book was also information as per section 2(f) of
the RTI Act. The Hon’ble Court concluded by directing the examining
bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books
subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the
safeguards and conditions subject to which the information should be
furnished.
10. That the respondents were obliged to provide the petitioner with
a copy of his OMR answer sheet since the same was a record and after
getting evaluated, had become an opinion of the examiner thereby
coming with the purview of ‘information’ as defined in section 2(f) of
the RTI Act. It is further submitted that section 7 (1) of the RTI Act
provides for the information sought to be dealt with as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within thirty days of the request, either provide
the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject
the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9.
Therefore, the aforesaid RTI applications sent by the petitioner to the
respondents may be dealt with expeditiously as possible i.e. within 48
hours, since it shall assist the petitioner in analyzing the answers
marked by him in his OMR answer sheet with respect to the questions in
which discrepancies were found in the Answer Key as stated above.
11. That in the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner,
being aggrieved and having no other alternative and efficacious remedy,
is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present
petition, to revaluate the questions in the OMR answer sheets with
respect to the questions wherein the answers provided in the answer
key published by the respondents are erroneous, (ii) to prohibit the
third list which may be published by the respondents if required in the
evening of 20.06.2012 from being published till the re-evaluation as
enunciated above is not done and (iii) if the processing of the RTI
applications sent by the petitioner to the respondents may be expedited
on the following inter alia:
GROUNDS
a. FOR THAT, the act of the respondents in not responding to the
petitioner’s plea to revaluate the the questions in the OMR answer
sheets with respect to the questions wherein the answers
provided in the answer key published by the respondents are
erroneous, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and is against the
directions as stated by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in
the case of Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Registrar General, High Court
of Delhi.
b. FOR THAT, the act of the respondents in declaring the third list
which may be published by the respondents if required in the
evening of 20.06.2012 before the re-evaluation is done is
arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Further, if a revised third list
is be declared after the revaluation is done, there is a possibility of
students including the petitioner, who would have otherwise
missed the cut-off in the third list as well to be included in the
revised list once the said revaluation is done by the respondents.
c. FOR THAT, the act of the respondents in not providing the
information as sought by the petitioner in his RTI applications is
arbitrary and unsustainable in law and is against the directions as
stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. V. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and ors.
d. FOR THAT, the act of the respondents in not dealing with the
aforesaid RTI applications sent by the petitioner to the
respondents as expeditiously as possible i.e. within 48 hours is
unfair since it the petitioner shall not be able to analyze the
answers marked by him in his OMR answer sheet with respect to
the questions in which discrepancies were found in the Answer
Key as stated above, within the admissions time frame period as
may be decided by the respondents.
12. That there is no other alternative efficacious remedy available
except by way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
13. That the petitioner respectfully submits that he has a very good
prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in his favor and if the
interim relief as prayed for is not granted, he would suffer irreparable
loss which cannot be compensated. The Petitioner seeks urgent ad-
interim ex parte relief from this Hon’ble Court in view of the fact that
the third list of students for admission to the National Law Universities
is likely to be published by the respondents by the evening of
20.06.2012.
14. That no other petition has been preferred before any other Court,
praying for the reliefs set out herein and the Petitioner has no other
alternate efficacious remedy except approaching this Hon’ble Court by
the present application, which has been made bonafide in the interest of
justice.
PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
1. Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus, or writ in the nature of
mandamus, or any other order writ or directions of like nature
directing the Respondents to (1) re-evaluate the questions in the
OMR answer sheets with respect to the questions wherein the
answers provided in the answer key published by the respondents
are erroneous as submitted above in para nos. 5-8, (ii) to prohibit the
third list which may be published by the respondents if required in
the evening of 20.06.2012 from being published till the re-evaluation
as enunciated above is not done and (iii) if the processing of the RTI
applications sent by the petitioner to the respondents may be
expedited and dealt with within 48 hours as submitted in para nos.
9-10.
2. Pending disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to direct the respondents, by way of an ex parte ad-interim
order, to (1) re-evaluate the questions in the OMR answer sheets
with respect to the questions wherein the answers provided in the
answer key published by the respondents are erroneous as
submitted above in para nos. 5-8, (ii) to prohibit the third list which
may be published by the respondents if required in the evening of
20.06.2012 from being published till the re-evaluation as enunciated
above is not done and (iii) if the processing of the RTI applications
sent by the petitioner to the respondents may be expedited and dealt
with within 48 hours as submitted in para nos. 9-10.
3. And pass, such further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the
ends of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONER SHALL AS
IN DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY
PETITIONERTHROUGH
(VIKRANT PACHNANDA)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PLACE : NEW DELHIDATED : ____ JUNE, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL ODINARY JURISIDCTION
C.W.P. NO. OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Nipun Gautam
……Petitioner
-Vs-
Convenor, Core Committee,
Common Law Admission Test, 2012 and another …….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Nipun Gautam, adult aged 19 years, S/o Shri. Umesh Gautam, R/o C-587,
LIG DDA flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi – 110093, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above noted Writ Petition and am well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such
competent to swear and affirm this Affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted by my counsel under
my instructions, the contents of which are true to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief, as verified below. The facts stated
therein may be treated as a part and parcel of this affidavit and are not
being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That the Annexures are true copies of the originals.
4. That the facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief, as verified below and nothing material has been
concealed from this Hon’ble Court while filing the present petition.
Solemnly affirmed at _______ on this ____ day of June, 2012
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, Nipun Gautam, adult aged 19 years, S/o Shri. Umesh Gautam, R/o C-587, LIG
DDA flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi – 110093, do hereby do hereby
verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 are true to the best of my
knowledge and believed by me to be true, the contents of Paragraphs 4 to 14
are true to the best of my information, the legal submissions therein believed
by me to be true, being as per advice of counsel and the last paragraph is in
the nature of a prayer as per legal advice and is believed by me to be true.
DEPONENT
Annexure P/1
Memorandum of Understanding
WHEREAS, the National Law School of India University, Bangalore
(hereinafter referred to as the NLSIU), the National Academy of Legal Studies
And Research University, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as NALSAR), the
National Law Institute University, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as NLIU),
the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to
as NUJS), the National Law University, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as
NLU), the Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (hereinafter referred
to as HNLU) and the Gujarat National Law University, Gandhi Nagar
hereinafter referred to as GNLU) have been incorporated by the State
Legislatures of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal,
Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat respectively;
AND WHEREAS the aforesaid universities, which have been established for
the purpose of teaching, extension, research, and for grant of Degrees and
other awards in the discipline of Law, are commonly referred to as the
National Law Universities;
AND FURTHER WHEREAS, the National Law Universities admit students to
Five Year Integrated law programmes leading to the award of Bachelor's
Degree in Law on the basis of All India entrance tests conducted by each
university, thereby requiring candidates seeking admission in them to appear
in multiple entrance tests:
AND WHEREAS, more National Law Universities are likely to be established,
which may lead to unavoidable overlap of dates of entrance tests and also
require candidates to purchase several admission forms and other
documents;
* National Law University, Jodhpur will be governed by the MoU subject to
grant of recognition under Section 12(b) of the UGC
AND WHEREAS, the aforesaid seven National Law Universities, with the
approval of the appropriate authority competent to so decide under the
provisions of the respective Act of Legislature under which each university
has been incorporated, have decided to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding for conducting a common entrance test for admission to the
Five Year Integrated law Degree programme being conducted by each
university, and for matters allied thereto.
NOW THEREFORE, this Memorandum of Understanding (Hereinafter referred
to as MoU) between file aforesaid seven National Law Universities, hereinafter
referred to as the participating universities, represented by their Vice
Chancellors (or Directors as the case may be), whose signatures are appended
hereunder, do hereby solemnly agree to the following action"- in order to
support and achieve the objective of conducting a common law entrance test :-
1) The common law entrance test shall be known as the “Common Law
admission Test" (CLAT), for admission to the participating universities
in their Five Year Integrated programmes of study in law, known
variously as B.A.;LL.B (Hons.), B.Sc.;L.L.B. (Hons.), B.Com.;LL.B (Hons.)
or any other nomenclature recognized by the Bar Council of India and
the University Grants Commission (UGC) as being equivalent to a
Bachelors degree in law.
2) The CLAT shall be conducted every year by rotation by each of the
seven National Law Universities beginning with the oldest among them.
3) CLAT 2008 which would be the test of the first year under this MoU
shall be conducted by NLSIU; and in the second year by NALSAR, in the
third year by NLIU, in the fourth by the year by the NUJS, in the fifth
year by the NLU, in the sixth year by the HNLU and in the seventh year
by GNLU and so on.
** If for any reason NLSIU, Bangalore is unable to hold the test for 2008 then
NALSAR, Hyderabad will hold it.
4) The University conducting the CLAT in any year shall be known as the
Organizing University for that year.
5) There shall be a Committee known as the Core Committee for CLAT
(CC_CLAT), for the purpose of deciding and prescribing all policies in
respect of the CLAT. The CC_CLAT shall also monitor, at such intervals
as may be decided by it, the implementation of its decisions. The
functions of the CC_CLAT shall, without prejudice to any other matter(s)
that the Committee may decide to include in its functions, the following:
a. Distribution of Income and Expenditure (including transfer of
funds) incurred in conducting the CLAT for the year;
b. Decide the date of the CLAT;
c. Format of the CLAT;
d. Approve the syllabus for CLAT;
e. Prescribe the qualifying marks (score) for the different categories
of candidates such as the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes,
the Other Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (OBCs),
Candidates with disabilities, and others;
f. Demarcate geographical boundaries among the participating
universities for the purpose of logistics and other arrangements of
CLAT;
g. Approving the quantum of honoraria to be Paid for various CLAT
related activities;
h. Prepare a Report on behalf of the outgoing Convener for the
incoming convener;
i. Prescribe statistical reports on file various aspects of CLAT;
j. Oversee the functioning of the committee;
6) The Vice Chancellors of the seven participating National Law
Universities shall constitute file membership of the CC_CLA.T; and the
Chancellor of the Organizing University shall be its Convener and shall
chair its meetings. More than half the membership of Vice Chancellors,
present personally, shall constitute the quorum for the meetings of the
Committee, The CC-CLAT shall be competent to invite not more than
two persons to each meeting of the Committee, who in its opinion may
make useful contribution to the transaction of its business. Provided
that, the invited persons shall not have the power to vote on any
decision or resolution of the Committee.
7) The CC_CLAT shall meet as many times as may be required at the
venue(s) as may be decided by the Convener, and shall prescribe the
rules of business, procedure and manner of conducting its own
meetings, other than the quorum referred to in the clause above.
8) There shall be a committee to implement the decisions of the CC_CLAT,
which shall be known as the Implementation Committee for CLAT
(IC_CLAT).
9) The Convener of CC CLAT in any year shall be file Chairperson of
IC_CLAT for that year, and a nominee each of the seven Vice Chancellors
shall be its members. In addition, the Chairperson may nominate one
person from the Organizing University to serve as a convener, who shall
however not be a member of the IC-CLAT.
10) The IC_CLAT shall be competent to decide on prescribing the rules of
conduct of its business and procedures for its meetings. The IC-CLAT
shall meet as often as may be required to implement all aspects of
conducting the CLAT.
11) Without prejudice to file powers of the CC_CLAT to assign to the
Implementation Committee any function in respect of the CLAT, the
IC_CLAT shall be responsible for the following functions.
a. Preparing the agenda for the meetings of the CC_CLAT;
b. Taking all steps in regard to file non confidential operations
namely:
i. Advertisements in regard to the CLAT in the print media
and through press releases;
ii. Designing, printing and publishing information brochure;
iii. Selection of vendors for printing and scanning of
applications;
iv. Preparing agreements with banks for the sale of application
forms and other documents;
v. Fixing test centres in accordance with capacity and demand;
vi. Liaison with participating institutions and other institutions
in respect of geographical distribution of logistics related
work;
vii. Elimination of duplicate applications, if any;
viii. Allotment of Registration Numbers and printing of admit
cards;
ix. Preparing guidelines and instructions to be observed by
candidates at the test centres;
x. Preparing guidelines and instructions for
representatives, presiding officers and invigilators;
xi. Declaration of results of CLAT;
xii. Preparing brochures for counselling, admission forms,
option forms, health certificates;
xiii. Offers of admission and counselling (if required);
xiv. Forwarding of all relevant documents to the academic office
of each participating institution;
xv. Evaluation once or double as the case may be;
xvi. Tabulation of results and preparation of merit list in coded
form;
xvii. Chairperson hands over keys and solutions/answers;
12) The pricing of file brochure/application form for CLAT shall be
as may be decided by the CC_CLAT each year, taking in to consideration
the fact that in any given year six of the Participating universities
shall be foregoing revenues accruing to them on the sale of the
respective application form. Further, at present every candidate has to
buy more than one application form for admission to the programmes
of study in the participating universities and therefore the CLAT would
result in saving on purchase of multiple application forms. In the first
year, the application form for CLAT 2008 shall be priced at Rs. 2000
(two thousand only). The proceeds (revenues) from the sale of
application forms and brochures shall be shared in the following
manner:
a. 50% of the proceeds shall be retained by the Organizing
University for meeting the expenditure on conducting CLAT;
b. The remaining 50% of the proceeds shall be divided equally
among the participating universities.
13) Each participating university shall be entitled to an equal share from
out of revenue accruing on account of the release of CLAT score to
institutions and universities other than the participating universities.
For CLAT 2008, a fee of Rs. 1000 (One thousand only) shall be levied.
The CC_CLAT shall be competent to revise file fee for release of score-
card time to time.
14) National Law Universities, other than file participating universities, may
be invited by the CC_CIAT to avail the score cards of CLAT or to assist in
the logistics and management of
a. Release of results (score cards) on payment to non-participating
institutions who wish to admit students to law programmes on
CLAT score.
b. Maintenance of accounts of income and expenditure and
distribution of revenues among participating universities on the
directions of the CC-CT.
c. Taking all necessary steps in regard to confidential operations
pertaining to CT, which may inter alia include:
i. Preparing guidelines for paper setters;
ii. Selection of team of paper setters from the seven
participating universities;
iii. Randomizing the choice of paper-setters and deciding on
the time and place of simultaneous paper-setting exercise;
iv. Ensuring confidentiality and secrecy in each aspect of work
involved in paper-setting activity;
v. Delivery of the sealed envelopes of the papers to the safe
custody of the IC_CLAT;
vi. Selection of the security printing press;
vii. Handing over the sealed packet of set paper;
viii. Proof-reading arrangements, random checks, packing and
transportation;
ix. The chairperson shall be responsible personally for the
despatch of the sealed box of the sealed questions paper
and answer books to the vice chancellor or his nominee to
the IC_CLAT;
x. Coding of ORS sheets, Answer Books, Question Papers and
finalizing instructions for coders – codes to be provided by
the chairperson of the IC_CLAT and to be known only to the
chairperson;
xi. Freezing of solutions or answers;
Test centres on such terms and conditions as may be mutually decided
between each such National Law University and the CC_CLAT. Convener,
CC_CLAT shall be empowered to negotiate on behalf of the participating
universities with such other National Law Universities.
This Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into this on this 23rd
November of 2007 by each of the participating universities acting through
their Vice Chancellors (Directors) whose signatures are affixed below.
---
(TRUE TYPED COPY)