Bombay HC orders constitution of expert panel for CLAT reassessment decision

While disposing the writ petition of an 18 year old CLAT candidate from Mumbai pertaining to reassessment of the impugned CLAT 2015 results and ranking of the candidates, the honourable Bombay High Court ordered an expert committee with the power to take a decision that could revise the “merit list of candidates if necessary”, making “the whole merit list and all subsequent process, will be subject to outcome of the Expert Panel/Comittee’s decision”.

The judgment runs into 33 odd pages was delivered by honourable Justice Anoop V. Mohta of the coram also comprising honourable Justice V.L. Achliya. The court has ordered that convenor RMLNLU Lucknow appoint an expert panel within five days, which within three days should take a decision on all objections, and within four days finish the process or revising the merit list.

The court also observed, “The   basic   issues   with   regard   to   the   rights   and/or entitlement   of   students   referring   to   the   marks,   positive   and/or negative, in this competitive examination is quite settled.  One mark can make and/or mar the career of students of his choice, specifically when   his   wish   and/or   desire,   based   upon   the   hard­work   and/or endeavour he/she has made, which needs to be respected by all.  The legitimate   expectation is clear that the student if has answered correctly the compulsory questions, he is entitled for the legitimate marks.  The rejection and denial of such mark, if answer is correct, is definitely unacceptable to any one.  We are not inclined to overlook this,   in   this   era   of   competition,   at   entrance   level   of   any examinations/courses.”

Additionally,The court relied upon various education pronouncements of the apex court viz. 'Kanpur University­Vs­ Samir Gupta reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC, Kanpur University, through VC and others v Samir Gupta and others (1983) 4 SCC 309, Manish Ujwal and others v Maharishi DayanandSaraswati University and others (2005) 13 SCC 744, etc.

Read the judgment here