Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CLAT Petition Judgment

CLAT Petition Judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,840|Likes:
Published by Bar & Bench

More info:

Published by: Bar & Bench on May 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/26/2012

pdf

text

original

 
WP(C) No.3208/2012 Page 1
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 + W.P.(C) No. 3208/2012 & CM No. 6861/2012Ujjwal Madan & Ors. ..... PetitionersThrough: Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Vikas Mehta and Ms. AditiBhat, Advocates.versusUnion of India & Ors. ..... RespondentsThrough: Mohd. Aslam Khan, Advocate forrespondent No.1.Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Preet Pal Singhand Ms. Priyam Mehta for respondentNo.2/BCI.Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Anand Varma and Mr. AmitPathak, Advocates for respondents 3and 4.
CORAM:
 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAURORDER25.05.2012%
1.
 
The result of Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter
referred to as “CLAT”)
conducted by the third respondent on 13
th
 May, 2012 is to be declared on 28
th
May, 2012. The three petitionersherein have approached this Court on 23
rd
May, 2012 to seek adirection to the fourth respondent to produce the question paper of theCLAT conducted on 13
th
May, 2012, as it is asserted by the
 
WP(C) No.3208/2012 Page 2
petitioners that the questions put in the
General Knowledge and Legal Aptitude
section of this examination were beyond the scope of thesyllabus prescribed by the third respondent. A direction is also soughtto the contesting respondents i.e. the third and fourth respondents i.e.the contesting respondents to exclude the questions which were out of the syllabus and to then declare the result of this examination. Aprayer for institutionalizing CLAT examinations to maintain aconsistent standard has been also sought in this petition.
2.
 
At the hearing of this petition, learned senior counsel for thepetitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the
 Information Brochure
issued by the contesting respondents for the CLAT, 2012 topoint out that it was clearly stipulated therein that in the GeneralKnowledge/Current Affairs Examination, the knowledge of CurrentAffairs of the students would be tested broadly pertaining to mattersfeaturing in the mainstream media between March, 2011 and March,2012.
3.
 
To show that the General knowledge/ Current Affairs section of CLAT, 2012 was out of syllabus, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners drew the attention of this Court to the questions(Annexure-P-2). Recollection of these questions (Annexure P-2) putin the CLAT, 2012 is said to be based upon the memory of thepetitioners.
4.
 
Regarding the
 Legal Aptitude
section of CLAT, 2012, it wasasserted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that 35 out of 50
 
WP(C) No.3208/2012 Page 3
questions on the subject were completely out of syllabus as thequestions put in the
 Legal Aptitude
section had assumed that thestudents had a prior knowledge of law and that the questions on legalaptitude relied upon principles which did not explain the technicalterms used therein, whereas, the Information Brochure of CLAT, 2012had made it clear that the students/ candidates would not be tested onany prior knowledge of law or legal concepts and if a technical/ legalterm is used in the question, that term will be explained in thequestion itself and that the
 Legal Aptitude
section of CLAT, 2012 is of vital importance in breaking the tie between the two students scoringeven marks. To indicate that the questions put in the
 Legal Aptitude
 section of CLAT, 2012 were out of syllabus, few illustrations from the
 Legal Aptitude
section of CLAT, 2012, based upon the memory of thepetitioners is appended as Annexure-P3 with the writ petition.
5.
 
To contend that the questions which are out of syllabus have tobe excluded from consideration, learned senior counsel for thepetitioners had placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of thisCourt in
Gunjan Sinha Jain vs. Registrar General, High Court of  Delhi;
188(2012) DLT 627.
6.
 
Learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents resiststhis writ petition by urging that it is premature and that the
GeneralKnowledge/ Current Affairs
section of CLAT, 2012 is not confined toCurrent Affairs only and so it cannot be said that the
GeneralKnowledge/ Current Affairs
section of CLAT, 2012 is out of syllabus.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->