- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday granted time to Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to verify the facts and file its reply in a plea alleging discrepancy in the Answer Key with respect to Question No. 82 of this year’s Common Law Admission Test (CLAT 2019).
The factual correctness of the question in dispute relates to the ‘Golden Peacock Award’. The counsel for the petitioner apprised the Court of the response received from the Secretariat of the Golden Peacock Award. The reply received by the Petitioner from the organization that confers this award indicates that it is awarded for Corporate Social Responsibility as well as Corporate Governance.
Thus, the petitioner has contended that Answer options A and D in the answer key ought to have been treated as the right answer. Further, it was argued by the petitioner that even after material information with respect to the factual correctness of the question was brought forth, the expert committee which was expected to decide on objections did not award marks to the petitioner. This inaction of the Expert Committee led to the petitioner being allotted a seat in an institute different from his preference and merit.
The CLAT Consortium, however, sought time to verify the facts in this regard and file its reply.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur acceded to the request and posted the matter for hearing on July 12.
The petition filed by CLAT candidate, Rochit Bakliwal has disputed the correctness of the answer to question no. 82, provided in the CLAT 2019 Answer Key published on the CLAT website.
Question no. 82 was as follows:
The Golden Peacock Award is given for excellence in
(A) Corporate Social Responsibility
(B) Energy Savings
(C ) Literature
(D) Corporate Governance
In the Answer Key released on the CLAT Website, option D was given as the correct answer. The petitioner had, however, marked option A as his answer.
It is the petitioner’s case that both options A and option D are correct as per the official website of ‘Golden Peacock Award’. The award, which has been instituted by the Institute of Directors (IOD), India is given for both Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance.
Further, the petitioner has also submitted that he had directly contacted the IOD by email and raised the query regarding the award.
Lijo George, who holds the post of Additional General Manager in the Golden Peacock Awards Secretariat, replied to the petitioner’s query and confirmed that the award is given for both Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance.
The petitioner raised an objection regarding certain other questions along with question no. 82, in accordance with the online procedure prescribed by the CLAT Consortium. The objection regarding question no. 82 was, however, not considered by the CLAT Consortium, prompting the current petition.
When the matter was heard on June 17, a Vacation bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh had issued notice to CLAT Consortium.
When the matter was heard again on June 27, the Court had refused interim relief.
The petitioner is being represented by advocates Kinshuk Jain and Anil Upman while the CLAT Consortium was represented by advocate Ashish Kumar Singh.