NAMITA CHANDRAHAS GUPTA Vs. GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive relief: -

(3.) THE petitioner herein appeared in the 12th standard examination in the Commerce Stream from Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board and was desirous of pursuing a career in the discipline of law. She, therefore, decided to appear at the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2014 to be conducted by the respondent University. The petitioner with a view to appear in the Common Law Admission Test, 2014 completed the requisite formalities for appearing at the said test and was issued an Admit Card for the said test for the Undergraduate Programme in the discipline of law. She, thereafter, appeared in the Common Law Admission Test which was conducted on 11th May, 2014, the result whereof was declared on 31st May, 2014. However, since there was some error in respect of the same, a notification came be issued withdrawing the results so declared and the final result came to be declared on 6th June, 2014. Upon declaration of the results, it was revealed that the petitioner had scored 14.50 marks out of 200 marks and was placed in the order of merit at Serial No.29011. Since the result of the petitioner was not as per her expectation, keeping in mind her performance at the above test, the petitioner opted for physical verification of her answer -sheet. As per the system evolved by the respondent, it is permissible for a candidate appearing in the test to request for physical verification of his/her answer -sheet. In view of the said practice, the request of the petitioner for physical verification was acceded to and the petitioner was accorded an opportunity of physical verification of her answer -sheet on 8th June, 2014 at Gandhinagar. During the course of physical verification, it was revealed that there was an error in assessing the answer -sheet of the petitioner attributable to a mistake committed by the petitioner in mentioning the Question Booklet Series provided to the petitioner.