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)