'Approach Grievance Cell Of University Or Jurisdictional HC': SC Refuses To Entertain Plea For Supplementary CLAT 2020 Exam For COVID Positive Aspirants

The petition was listed before the bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah.

"Why should we entertain a 32 petition for this prayer? There is a grievance committee in the universities, go there! Or go to the jurisdictional HC", said Justice Bhushan at the outset.

"These are students who aspire to appear in the CLAT. Very recently, in another matter, Your Lordships had passed the order...", ventured the counsel for the petitioners, relying on the September 28 order of the same bench permitting an applicant who was COVID19 infected to appear in the CLAT 2020 entrance exam scheduled on the same date.

The bench had made it clear that only the aspirant who had approached the Court vide the said urgent application shall be permitted to avail the facility and take the exam. The court said that the applicant shall provide a copy of the order in the instant case to the authorities so as to be able to take the exam.

""We remember that order. We had said so because the examination had not been held at that time. He came to us then and we permitted him. But now you want a supplementary exam, refund of fee. For all this, there is a grievance cell in the university itself", said Justice Bhushan.

"The difficulty is that this is a law students' matter. By that time, we will lose a year. And this is not subjected to us, there are similar persons across the country. Not just the 3 of us, but numerous other students", pressed the counsel, even as Justice Bhushan noted that all these concerns can be looked into by the grievance cell.

"32 petition is not maintainable. It cannot be entertained", repeated the bench.

Filed through Advocate on Record Shagufa Salim, Advocate Sumit Chander and Advocate Vinay Kumar, the petition alleges that the Consortium of NLUs earlier permitted them to appear in the CLAT 2020 exam scheduled on September 28 but has later changed its stance and totally excluded the COVID-19 suspected/positive candidates from appearing in CLAT 2020, vide the notification dated September 23, which herein is in total disregard to the SOPs issued earlier by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare whereby they had promised to allow even the COVID-19 symptomatic/positive candidates to appear in the exams. The petitioners have further relied on the assurances given by the Consortium of NLUs in the CLAT 2020's Admit Card issued to the Petitioners and other candidates.

The Admit Card issued by the Consortium of NLUs on September 15 stated:

"those candidates whose body temperature exceeds 99.14 F or show any COVID-19 symptoms will be allocated to an Isolation Lab within the Test Centre from where they may take the Test safely."

To the contradictory, the alleged notification by the Consortium of NLUs on September 23 stated:

"All the candidates who have been tested positive and are under medical surveillance or in isolation will not be permitted to take the CLAT 2020 examination scheduled to be held on 28 September 2020."

As an alternative measure, the Petitioners have prayed before the Supreme Court that the Consortium of NLUs be directed to refund the application fees Rs. 4000/- to each of the Petitioners and pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of them towards damages for the loss of one year in career on account of negligence of the Respondents.

The Petitioners have also relied upon the order of the Supreme Court dated September 28 in Rakesh Kumar Aggarwalla & Anr. v. National Law School Of India University, Bengaluru & Ors., wherein the Consortium of NLUs was directed by the higher Court to conduct the CLAT 2020 examination on September 28 taking all precautions and care for the health of the student after following the SOPs issued by the Health Ministry and Ministry of Human Resource and Development.

The Petition alleges that such act on the part of Consortium of NLUs in not allowing the Petitioners to appear in the CLAT 2020 examination is arbitrary in nature and deprives the Petitioners of their Fundamental Right under Article 14 and Article 21.