- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
The petitioner had made an interim prayer for a stay on the results of CLAT 2019, or in the alternative, to have one seat left vacant in National Law Universities (NLUs) where he would be eligible for admission, in case his answer to question no. 82 is approved.
A Bench of Justice GR Moolchandani, however, said that the “aspect of factual lis involving intricacies of correctness of questions” cannot be examined emergently in a writ petition under Article 226. Hence, prima facie, the wisdom of an expert committee cannot be doubted.
Ample and proper time has to be given to the respondents to file their reply, the Court said.
The Court, therefore, turned down the prayer for interim relief and posted the case for further hearing on July 19. The CLAT Consortium has been given two weeks’ time to file their reply.
Advocates Kinshuk Jain and JP Gupta appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Ashish Kumar Singh and Anupam Bhargava of Capstone Legal represented the CLAT Consortium.
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 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 option 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 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, had replied to the petitioner’s query and confirmed that the award is given for both Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance.
The petitioner had then 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.
It is the petitioner’s prayer that a revised Answer key be published indicating both option A and option D as the correct answer for question 82. The score of the petitioner may also be revised taking into account the same, the petition prays.
When the matter was heard on June 17, a Vacation bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh had issued notice to CLAT Consortium.