Follow Us

Follow Us On

CLAT 2018: Grievance Redressal Committee Suggests Compensating with marks Instead of a Re-test

Published On : 08th Jun 2018 ,Friday

Supreme Court has refused to put a stay on CLAT counselling process. The CLAT 2018 Grievance Committee constituted by the NUALS Kochi has filed its report before the Supreme Court. The Committee headed by the retired High court judge, Justice MR Hariharan Nair, has concluded CLAT 2018 was fraught with various imperfections. So, the committee has suggested that affected candidates would be compensated with extra marks. However, the committee has not advised for a re-test.

The Committee submitted its report before the Supreme Court pointed out that there are a total of 4690 registered complaints received regarding the conduct of the law admission test. Where, 70 candidates lost less than one minute, 140 candidates lost less than two minutes, 94 candidates lost more than one minute, 1899 candidates required multiple logins

Out of 1899 who needed multiple-logins, 892 were not given the due extension of time, out of which 623 got effective time of 2 hours for the exam. 558 students availed the extra time offered, while 449 did not avail the extra time offered.

The Committee has stated that re-examination is not a wise decision by considering the magnitude of requirements to conduct such an exam and the need to ensure smooth education of successful candidates during the current academic year. Therefore, It has recommended that a method be adopted to compensate students with marks, considering the time lost by those who had to undergo re-login, or did not get extended time. The Committee has stated that it has no capacity to suggest a compensatory formula for the same. Hence, it has recommended that the committee be expanded by including a statistician of competence. In the alternative, it has asked for a formula or other compensatory solution suggested at the Bar.

The report states-

“That is to say, in case one or more candidates with the same mark acquires eligibility for the reason that another person with the same mark has got into the eligibility list as per the existing rank, (say 51), such candidates may be added with Rank Nos. 51A, 51B etc. and for accommodating the number of such additional entrants an equal number of supernumerary seats may be created on an ad hoc basis.”

It means the committee ensures that “no heartburn is caused to candidates who have already ensured their berth in the rank list”. So the ranks of candidates in the existing list will remain unaffected.