Click Here To Read LiveLaw Hindi- The First Hindi Legal News Website

Breaking: Rajasthan HC To Hear Plea Seeking CLAT2018 Retest Tomorrow

In the wake of the episode of mismanagement and technical snags characterizing the CLAT2018 held on May 13, two candidates have approached the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court praying for a re-test in view of the blatant violation of the prescribed rules and regulations. The High Court has agreed to hear the matter tomorrow.

The petitioners Akshay Jain and Mansi Jain have averred that neither the Demo Examination nor the Main Examination was conducted as per the instructions provided in the Admit Card and the same were blatantly violated by the Respondents during the said examination.

Further, NUALS, Kochi (Respondent no. 1), having conducted this year’s CLAT, only a few days prior to the examination, announced a new interface for the examination, claiming it to be “new and improved”. On account of technical errors in connection with the said interface, the Examination was conducted with a delay of around 10-12 minutes and as a consequence of the same time was shown as elapsed on the timer of the petitioners’ user accounts.

It has been contended that in blatant violation of the prescribed time limit, the Respondents, by making some technical alterations in the computer system, added upto 40 minutes of extra time to the timer of some of the candidates and denied any extra time to the rest including the Petitioners. That as a consequence of the above violations, the Petitioners received a total of only 1 hour 50 minutes, however some of the candidates who were allocated upto 40 minutes received 2 hours 30 minutes against the prescribed time limit of a total of 2 hours to attend the paper.

It has been claimed that two representatives viz. Mr. Deepankar Sharma and Mr. Gyan Bissa, of NLU, Jodhpur (Respondent No. 2) advised the Petitioners along with the aggrieved candidates to write an undertaking mentioning the problems that occurred at the examination centre and the same was to be signed by the two representatives. However, while the Petitioner and the other aggrieved candidates were busy in writing the said undertaking, the aforesaid two representatives of the Respondent No. 2 ‘absconded’ from the premises.

Continuing, the petitioners state that quoting the aforesaid violations, a Police Complaint against the two faculty members of Respondent No. 2, was filed in the Police Station Mahindra SEZ, Jaipur wherein the Petitioners happens to be two of the seven Complainants. Also, the statements of four complainants including the present Petitioners have been recorded by the police.

Besides, in addition to the aforesaid violations regarding the prescribed time limit, the computers assigned malfunctioned, posing serious hindrances- even on one click, Computer Systems of the Petitioner hanged between answering one question and the next, henceforth causing a further delay of about 20-30 seconds in answering each question; clicking on “Next Question” took the Petitioners 3-4 questions forward, hence, resulting in omission of some questions and loss of more time; the queries raised by the Petitioners regarding the technical issues were not resolved by the Respondents; no specific seats were allotted to the Petitioners and the Petitioners were made to sit on random computer systems which were deemed to be working properly as per the Respondents; the Practice Test was not conducted as per the aforementioned instructions & guidelines and due to the noise and complaints regarding the working of the computer systems, the Petitioners were unable to concentrate on their examination in the clamorous environment.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

  • Neeta soni says:

    My daughter ayushi also faced problems
    She got extra time but there was chaos n noise that disturbed her to concentrate
    Screen was blinking n computer was slow also

  • Ayushi Aman says:

    Even i faced the same problem my computer didnt display the questions for 10 mins for all the computers in the test lab and time was still going on and after 30 mins my monitor all of a sudden shut down due to and when i called the invigilator they were very slow due to which any answered were got removed and face a loss of 20 mins again. Over and above my mouse was even very slow i did complain about it but they said this is the standard of the speed of the mouse because i dont think so by clicking 5 times then once my answered is clicked…Is it really the standard of it ? We should get a chance again to present over self in the test because we did work hard for it. And if not then who will play for the loss of 30 mins in the exam? Whats the use to easy or average paper if the management to answering the paper is not working then a difficult paper is even good enough because at last in both the cases we didnt able to answer the questions anyways. Please hear the plea of the student and give us a fair chance to present us again !!!

  • Aruna bopche says:

    Yes that’s true even I did also faced same problem during examination and I did approximately lost 20 to 30 min just because of misconduct of invigilators they were so untrained ,they allowed any person to seat anywhere even with their friends, this years examination was so worst and I think it should be retested because if it will be not retested it will be unfair with person who have given their 1 to 2 year completely for preparation of that……..

  • Manjeet singh Yadav says:

    Ya its true this exam should be reconduct by nlu

  • Seem Roj says:

    Please provide me the contact details of these two candidate.

  • Dr. Nilesh Naphade says:

    How can a National level Competitive exam be conducted in such a shoddy manner? Is it acceptable that a National Common law entrance test to the most prestigious colleges is unequal to examinees in more than one ways? Where is the competition then? Some students asked to wind up in 1hr 50mins while some students kept writing the exam for more than 2 hrs.

    If the exam Centre has collected a handsome 24.crores.. Why such a shabby exam with technically lame infrastructure, poorly trained invigilators and disregard for the students comfort?

    Do you know how well the other competitive law entrance exams like AILET , Symbiosis law entrance and MHCET were held? Can CLAT take some lessons from them?

  • Shivangi says:

    Please make the re test happen.. this is really unfair! Our hardwork should be given a fair chance.. please help.

  • Saima Afzal says:

    We hope court will give its judgement in our favour.. We want clat
    to be conducted once again..

  • Yajush says:

    I am yajush tripathi , a clat aspirant who was one of the victims of the blunder that occurred on may 13 my centre was technology one in ahmedabad There were many problems which I had to go through like malfunctioning of computer, power cut for 20 min,questions not appearing on the computer screen for more than 4 minutes , non_cooperative invigilators,next question taking me to 3questions forward these problems which were not at all acceptable led to the chaos so I request the authorities to reconfirm the examination

  • Agya Agrawal says:

    Sure… I am in with this petition….i couldn’t feel like it was the national level exam…where time is most important thing .. we have to manage every single second to complete paper on time and when there is havoc created by this technical problem… we can’t give 100% what we supposed to give.. exam should be reconducted.

CLOSE
CLOSE
Top