DISHA PANCHAL AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

12                      [2018]
              SUPREME COURT    5 S.C.R. 12
                             REPORTS                      [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A                       DISHA PANCHAL AND OTHERS
                                           v.
              UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                       (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 551 of 2018)
B                                 JUNE 13, 2018
             [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
            Education/Educational Institutions – Admission to National
     Law Universities – Online entrance test-Common Law Admission
     Test (CLAT) – Improper conduct of – Grievance of 4690 candidates
C
     that loss of time as a result of inadequate facilities in conducting
     examinations and not affording them single log in session without
     any interruption – On appeal, held: Purity of examination process
     was not compromised so as to annul the entire process –
     Normalization formula would be the correct and appropriate
D    methodology to compensate and take care of the interest of the 4690
     candidates and would also ensure that no prejudice is caused to
     rest of the candidates – Normalization formula proceeds on the basis
     of answering efficiency or capacity of a candidate to answer
     questions in given time and then applies his rate of success as a
     parameter – Thus, the normalization formula is accepted and the
E
     outright cancellation of the entire test is rejected – Exercise of
     adopting and applying the normalization formula and revising the
     scores of 4690 candidates to be undertaken and completed within
     the stipulated period – Furthermore, the examination was not
     conducted satisfactorily – There was complete inadequacy –
F    Issuance of direction to the government to appoint a Committee to
     look into the matter and take appropriate remedial measures.
           Disposing of the petitions, the Court
           HELD: 1.1 The basic grievance raised by the candidates
     pertains to loss of time as a result of deficiency on part of the
G    examination conducting body in not ensuring adequate facilities
     and not affording them single log in session without any
     interruption. The idea so projected is pointing towards loss of
     time and inconvenience and not suggesting that the purity of
     examination process was in any way compromised so as to annul
H    the entire process. Any outright cancellation would visit
                                      12
   DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                          13


tremendous inconvenience and hardship upon rest of the                    A
candidates. If the interest of those candidates who suffered loss
of time could otherwise be compensated, there is no reason that
the entire admission test be cancelled or annulled. [Para 8][22-
G-H; 23-A]
      1.2 In the Chart, all the details including time availed, time      B
lost, number of questions attempted, number of questions
correctly answered, number of questions wrongly answered and
the answering efficiency of the candidates are tabulated. The next
columns give the notional figure as to how many questions he
would have answered if there was no time loss and how many
questions he would have rightly answered. These notional figures          C
give statistically correct and appropriate formula to compensate
for the loss of time. The figures gives the chart against the
candidates showing that applying the normalization formula, where
the candidate would be entitled to be placed at. [Para 9][24-A-C]
       1.3 Since all the details regarding log in and log out times       D
are available in respect of each of those 4690 candidates, it is
possible to arrive at revised score applying such normalization
formula in respect of said 4690 candidates. The normalization
formula so suggested, in the circumstances, would be the best
possible way to compensate and take care of the interest of those         E
4690 candidates. At the same time, it would also ensure that no
prejudice is caused to rest of the candidates. The normalization
formula proceeds on the basis of answering efficiency or capacity
of a candidate to answer questions in given time and then applies
his rate of success as a parameter. Normally, a candidate would
first answer those questions, whose answers he is well aware of           F
and leave out rest to be answered in the end. His success rate in
the former part would certainly be greater, as compared to the
latter. Since he would be given benefit at the same success rate,
there would be no prejudice. It is true that repeated interruptions
would cause mental stress and upset him. But that aspect as a             G
factor is difficult to be translated in a quantifiable parameter. Given
the circumstances, the normalization formula appears to be the
correct and appropriate methodology. Therefore, the formula so
suggested is accepted and the contention of outright cancellation
of the entire test is rejected. [Para 10][24-D-H; 25-A]
                                                                          H
14            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A          1.4 Having considered the entirety of the matter, the
     following directions are given:
           A). The exercise of applying normalization formula and
     revising the scores of 4690 candidates shall be completed by
     15.06.2018. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 through its Convenor –Vice
B    Chancellor, National University would undertake the entire
     exercise and complete it by 15.06.2018.
           B). Upon completion of said exercise, the revised scores
     of 4690 candidates would be published by respondents 2 and 3
     on the official website on 16.06.2018.
C          C). Based on such revised scores the merit list would be
     rearranged in terms of the suggestion given by the Committee.
     The revised position of the concerned candidate would be
     indicated by rank Nos.51A-51B.
           D). The first round of counseling which began on 10.06.2018
D    would go on without any impediment and if any candidate is
     allocated a seat, such allocation will not in any way stand adversely
     altered as a result of revised position granted to any of the
     candidates from the body of 4690 candidates.
           E). If any candidate from the body of 4690 candidates is
E    otherwise entitled, that is to say even without the benefit of
     revised score, to be allocated any seat, it goes without saying
     that such allocation would not in any way stand adversely affected.
            F). In the second round of counseling the rank/merit list so
     prepared in terms of these directions would be the governing
F    list and the seats in second and subsequent rounds of counseling
     would be allocated on the basis of the list so revised in pursuance
     of these directions.
           G). If a candidate, as a result of revised rank list being
     operative in second and subsequent round of counseling wants
G    to secure admission in any other college of his or her choice
     going by his or her revised ranking, he/she would be allowed to
     do so without incurring any disadvantage. In such cases, the fees
     if deposited in the first college shall be given due credit against
     the admission in the second college which the candidate may opt
     for as a result of revised ranking. [Para 12][25-C-H; 26-A-C]
H
   DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                         15


      1.5 The matter is dealt with only from the stand point of          A
how best to compensate the candidates who lost valuable time
while undergoing test. The way the examination was conducted
is not satisfactory. The body which was given the task of
conducting the examination was duty bound to ensure facilities
of uninterrupted UPS and generator facility. The record indicates
                                                                         B
complete inadequacy on that point. Thus, the Union of India in
the Ministry of Human Resources and Development is directed
to appoint a Committee to look into the matter and take
appropriate remedial measures including penal action, if any,
against the body which was entrusted with the task. The
Committee so constituted shall also look into the aspect of having       C
completely satisfactory arrangements in future so that no such
instances are repeated or reoccur in coming years. It is observed
that the idea of entrusting the task of monitoring the conduct of
entire examination to different Law Universities every year also
needs to be re-visited. The agreement with the examination
                                                                         D
conducting body, which was placed on record indicates that as
against the amount made over to such examination conducting
body, the fees charged from the candidates are far in excess. The
Committee would bestow consideration to all these aspects after
having inputs from such sources as it may deem appropriate
including Bar Council of India and make a detailed report to this        E
Court within the stipulate period. The High Courts are requested
to dispose of the pending matters raising challenge in respect of
CLAT 2018, in the light of the directions. [Paras 13, 14][26-D-H]
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
551 of 2018.                                                             F
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
                                WITH
      W. P. (C) Nos. 554, 600 and 621 of 2018.
      Harvinder Chowdhury, Ramesh Chand, Dr. Nishesh Sharma, Ms.         G
Meera Patel, Anil Kumar Singh, Ketan Nehra, Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit
Gupta, Siddharth Tiwari, Zoheb Hossain, Rajendra Dangwal, Ms. Rashmi
Singhania, Maninder Singh, Shalinder Saini, Sanjay K. Pathak, Amarjeet
Singh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, A. Karthik, Gaurav Bahl, Sudhanshu Palo,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
                                                                         H
16            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These petitions highlight improper
     conduct of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 by Respondent
     Nos.2 and 3, which is a single window online entrance test for admission
     to 19 prestigious National Law Universities in the country. The petitioners
B    had appeared for said CLAT and had faced various difficulties, which
     according to them, were occasioned as a result of mismanagement by
     respondent Nos.2 and 3. Some of the difficulties that were experienced
     by the petitioners and other candidates were:
           A. Questions of the examination did not appear on the screen at
C          the start, and were intermittently disappearing and re-appearing.
           B. The options to move to the next question, etc. stopped working
           intermittently.
           C. Blank screens or frozen screens and software crashes.

D          D. Invigilators were incompetent and unhelpful – in being unable
           to help resolve glitches and in terms of their rudeness, when
           apprised of the existence of glitches.
           E. Computers were dysfunctional and rebooting them did not help.
            Resultantly, the effective time available to the candidates was far
E    lesser than the allotted time, which in turn caused great prejudice to the
     candidates.
            2. In addition to the petitions filed in this Court, some candidates
     also approached various High Courts, where the petitions are still pending.
     By order dated 24.05.2018 this Court had said, “as the entire issue in
F    reference to CLAT Examination – 2018 is the subject matter in the
     present proceedings, it is appropriate that no High Court shall proceed
     with the hearing of pending proceedings on the subject matter till further
     orders.”
           3. On 25.05.2018 following order was passed by this Court:
G          “In deference to the observations made by the Court during the
           course of hearing yesterday, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
           graciously agreed to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee
           consisting of a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court, Mr. Justice
           M.R. Hariharan Nair, Dr. Santhosh Kumar G., Professor and Head,
H
DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                              17
            [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

  Department of Computer Science, Cochin University of Science             A
  and Technology. The Committee will be chaired by Mr. Justice
  M.R. Hariharan Nair who will examine every singular
  representation/complaint received online till now and any further
  representation/complaint received till 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27thMay,
  2018 and after due analysis, appropriate decision on case to case
                                                                           B
  basis will be taken by the Committee.
  In the first phase, the representations/complaints already received
  and of all the writ petitioners before this Court as well as different
  High Courts may be scrutinized and appropriate report/
  recommendation/ decision thereon be recorded by the appropriate
  authority before 29th May, 2018 to be produced before the Court          C
  on 30th May, 2018.
  In the second phase, new/fresh representation/complaints received
  online upto 7.00 p.m. of Sunday, 27th May, 2018 be taken up for
  consideration and, if possible, the scrutiny thereof be completed
  on the same lines as indicated above up to 29th May, 2018 and            D
  status report in that behalf be filed before the Court on 30th May,
  2018.
  Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that as
  soon as fresh/new representations/complaints are received online,
  attempt will be made to acknowledge the same contemporaneously           E
  as far as possible.
  We appreciate the fair stand taken by learned counsel for
  Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to offer dispensation of this nature within
  such a short time.
                                                                           F
  Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that a
  dedicated email account will be created for this purpose of which
  publicity will be given on the official website of CLAT and will be
  notified on the official website very shortly within two hours from
  now.
                                                                           G
  We make it clear that this order will also enure to the benefit of
  the writ petitioners who have filed writ petition in different High
  Courts.
  Interim stay regarding proceedings pending before different High
  Courts will continue to operate till the next date of hearing.
                                                                           H
18             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A          List the matters on 30th May, 2018.”
            4. The Grievance Redressal Committee so constituted, has since
     then filed a comprehensive report enclosing certain annexures. Copies
     of the report as well as annexures were directed to be given to the
     learned counsel appearing for the parties to enable them to assist this
B    Court. Paragraphs 4, 12 and 14 of the Report are as under:-
           “4. The number of candidate writ petitioners as on 30-05-2018:
           25 (Sl. Nos. 1-25 of Annexure – I of the first Report dated 29-05-
           2018)
           Number of complaints received up to the hearing of the case; i.e.,
C          11.30 hrs on 25-05-2018 - 2676
           Number of complaints received between 11.30 am and 7 p.m. on
           25-05-2018 - 115
           Number of complaints received in the new e- mail id between
D          5.50 p.m. on 25-05-18 to 7.00 p.m. on 27-05-2018 - 5677.
            12. The team of service providers representing the Sify provided
     the Committee with display of the Audit Report and all Supporting data
     available at the central server of the company. The names of these
     officers are in Annexure -II (already submitted along with the Report
     dated 29-05-2018). In certain cases the Committee felt that the explanation
E
     of the Service Provider regarding alleged lapses was essential. The details
     so obtained are in Annexure -III (already submitted along with the Report
     dated 29-05-2018).
           14. On a perusal of the various complaints raised by the candidates,
     the Committee felt that they broadly fall under one or more of the following
F
     categories:
           1. Frequent login failures.
           2. Change of machines / mouse and disruptions.
           3. Questions not visible in full or in part.
G
           4. Registered answers disappeared.
           5. Heat and unfavourable environment.
           6. Commotion and distraction.

H
   DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                             19
               [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      7. Time extension not effective as there was no re log in.             A
      8. Undue time extension was given to some.
      9. Deliberate cheating by closure of browser.
      10. Power failure and absence of UPS needing multiple log ins
and distraction of concentration.                                            B
      11. Pre-examination preparation sessions were ineffective; very
often machines had to be changed and distracted.
      12. Invigilators unhelpful.”
       5. The matter was dealt with by the Committee in the light of the
                                                                             C
audit report and the data made available relating to 4690 candidates.
The Committee then considered the matter under the heading “Details
of appraisal” and made certain suggestions as under:
      “A. Scrutiny of the data relating to 4690 candidates shows that
      some of the candidates got only lesser time than what is due to
                                                                             D
      them for appearance in the examination. These are categorized
      as follows:
      1. candidate who got deficiency of less than one minute: 70
      2. candidate who got deficiency of less than two minute: 140
      3. candidate who got deficiency of more than one minute: 94            E

      Thus the total number of candidates who got time marginally
      deficient is 210 and including those who lost more than two minutes,
      it is 304.
      Similarly, the data analysis shows that –                              F
     i. 2276 of them had a single log in session right from
         commencement of the examination till its culmination.
     ii. 1899 of the applicants needed multiple log in sessions with no
          response in the first session. This comes under three sub
          categories viz.                                                    G
         (1) Due extension of time was not given in 892 cases involving
         multiple sessions, out of which 623 candidates got effective
         time of 2 hours for completing the examination.
         (2) Time extension given and availed: 558
                                                                             H
20              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A               (3) Time extension given and not availed: 449
            iii. Multiple logins with response in first session: 515
            14A*1. Clause 7 and 19 of Annexure XI, read with clause l and m
            (iii) of Annexure xii cast a duty on Sify Technologies to ensure
            that UPS and Generator facilities were provided so as to ensure
B           facility of uninterrupted activity for the candidate. The lapse in
            the matter appears to be the main cause which led to need for
            frequent re logins on the part of the candidate.
            15. The CLAT of 2018 was fraught with various imperfections.
            The major defects found are categorized as follows:
C
              i. The majority of complaints relate to failure of initial log in.
              Multiple log in appears to have affected the performance of the
              system. Software and hardware efficiency will depend upon
              server capacity and efficacy. Under Cl.8, page 8, of Ann.XII,
              the Service Provider was duty bound to provide trouble-free
D             software. Common defect of initial log in failure must have
              arisen from the hardware, software or network deficiencies.
              ii. Conduct of a test of this magnitude without providing efficient
              software and computers to the candidates has resulted in
              avoidable interruptions in answering questions.
E
              iii. Infrastructural defects like want of/failure of the air
              conditioning systems which stood in the way of the best
              performance of students in many centres in the examination
              conducted at the peak of summer.
              iv. Power failure which affected many centres has resulted in
F
              loss of time and disturbance to the concentration of mind required
              for a smooth performance in a competitive test.
              v. Failure of invigilators to facilitate re-login which is essential
              for availing the benefit of extended time granted to compensate
              for lost time arising from power failure, system hanging, etc.
G
              vi. Failure to grant extended time even in cases where the first
              log in attempt failed or in the subsequent attempt/s the time
              obtained is lower than what is prescribed, though such reduction
              was only marginal.
     *1 This para, also marked as para 14 in the report has been renumbered by us as para
H    14A
DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                             21
            [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

   vii. To redress the genuine grievances projected, two courses          A
   appear to be open. They are:
    1. The cancellation of the entire test and re-conduct thereof.
    The Committee does not suggest the same considering the
    magnitude of the requirements and the need to ensure smooth
    education of the successful candidates during the current             B
    academic year.
    2. A method to compensate the students with some marks
    considering the lost time for those who underwent the need to
    re long in more than once; loss of opportunity to get extended
    time or to avail the same even after being found eligible. This       C
    committee, as it stands, now, has no capacity to suggest a
    compensatory formula. Either it has to be expanded including
    a statistician of competence or in the alternative, consider a
    formula or other compensatory solution suggested at the Bar,
    if any.
                                                                          D
    3. When the list is redrawn after providing compensation as
    above, it has to be ensured that the rank of candidates in the
    existing list are not affected. That is to say, in case one 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       E
    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. This
    will ensure that no heart burn is caused to candidates who
    have already ensured their berth in the rank list.                    F
    4. No relief is suggested on the ground of errors in framing of
    questions or in the matter of fixing the answer key. This is so
    because a Committee of four vice chancellors has already
    reviewed the questions and answers thread bare and found, in
    its meeting held on 13.05.2018 that inaccuracy exists only in         G
    the case of Qn. No. 83(393) and proceeded to cancel that
    Question and accordingly directed evaluation of the paper
    treating the total marks only as 199 instead of 200 as originally
    planned. With regard to Qn.No.153 (463) which originally
    carried a wrong answer key, it was decided by that VC
                                                                          H
22             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A              Committee to correct the answer key and to upload the
               corrected key in CLAT-2018 web site. The result declared is
               in accordance with the above changes. The controversy over
               inaccuracy of questions and key may end there.”
            6. The audit report placed along with the Report sets out all
B    relevant details as to that how the candidates had navigated from one
     question to the other and the exact Log in and Log out time. The audit
     report also gives details about actual time made available to each candidate
     including extension of time, wherever it was granted/availed. According
     to the Committee, 2276 candidates had single log in session right from
     the commencement of the examination while 1899 candidates required
C    multiple log in sessions, the details of which are given in the extract
     hereinabove. The Committee also touched upon the issue as to how the
     students could be compensated. The facts indicate that out of 54464
     candidates who took the examination at 250 centres, 4690 candidates
     had raised grievances within the time stipulated by this Court. The data
D    relating to such 4690 candidates has been catalogued by the Committee.
            7. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate
     for the Petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, Additional Solicitor General for
     Union of India, Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate for Respondents 2
     and 3 and all other learned advocates who appeared for various
E    Interveners and petitioners in connected matters. Two questions arise
     for our consideration:
           (a) Whether the entire test needs to be cancelled and a fresh test
           is required to be ordered;
           (b) If the entire test is not to be cancelled, what methodology can
F          be adopted to compensate the students who had lost time and
           were put to prejudice.
            8. The basic grievance raised by the candidates pertains to loss of
     time as a result of deficiency on part of the examination conducting
     body in not ensuring adequate facilities and not affording them single log
G    in session without any interruption. The idea so projected is pointing
     towards loss of time and inconvenience and not suggesting that the purity
     of examination process was in any way compromised so as to annul the
     entire process. Any outright cancellation would visit tremendous
     inconvenience and hardship upon rest of the candidates. If the interest
     of those candidates who suffered loss of time could otherwise be
H
   DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                           23
               [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

compensated, there is no reason that the entire admission test be          A
cancelled or annulled. We, therefore, invited learned counsel to address
the Court on what could be the possible solution to take care of the
interest of those 4690 candidates. Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate
placed before us the following Chart in relation to four petitioners by
way of illustration.
                                                                           B




                                                                           C




                                                                           D




                                                                           E




                                                                           F




                                                                           G




                                                                           H
24             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A           9. In the Chart, all the details including time availed, time lost,
     number of questions attempted, number of questions correctly answered,
     number of questions wrongly answered and the answering efficiency of
     the candidates are tabulated. For instance, Animesh Shukla had lost 553
     seconds i.e. roughly over nine minutes. Out of 200 questions, he had
     correctly answered 125 questions while his answers in respect of 47
B
     questions were found to be wrong. The score that he secured was 113.25.
     Considering the number of questions attempted, the answering efficiency
     was found to be 38.65 seconds per question. The next columns give the
     notional figure as to how many questions he would have answered if
     there was no time loss and how many questions he would have rightly
C    answered. These notional figures give us statistically correct and
     appropriate formula to compensate for the loss of time. The figures
     given in the chart against this candidate show that applying the
     normalization formula, the candidate would be entitled to be placed at a
     score of 122.25 as against 113.35.
D           10. Since all the details regarding log in and log out times are
     available in respect of each of those 4690 candidates, it is possible to
     arrive at revised score applying such normalization formula in respect of
     said 4690 candidates. We repeatedly asked the learned advocates for
     the petitioners and intervenors whether they could suggest any alternate
     mechanism or point out any infirmity or fault in normalization formula so
E    placed by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate but no counsel could
     suggest any alternative or point out any infirmity. According to us, the
     normalization formula so suggested, in the circumstances, would be the
     best possible way to compensate and take care of the interest of those
     4690 candidates. At the same time, it would also ensure that no prejudice
F    is caused to rest of the candidates. The normalization formula proceeds
     on the basis of answering efficiency or capacity of a candidate to answer
     questions in given time and then applies his rate of success as a parameter.
     Normally, a candidate would first answer those questions, whose answers
     he is well aware of and leave out rest to be answered in the end. His
     success rate in the former part would certainly be greater, as compared
G    to the latter. Since he would be given benefit at the same success rate,
     there would be no prejudice. It is true that repeated interruptions would
     cause mental stress and upset him. But that aspect as a factor is difficult
     to be translated in a quantifiable parameter. Given the circumstances,
     the normalization formula appears to be the correct and appropriate
H
   DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                               25
               [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

methodology. We, therefore, accept the formula so suggested and reject         A
the contention of outright cancellation of the entire test.
       11. Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that by
15 th June, 2018 the entire exercise of adopting and applying the
normalization formula and arriving at a revised score in respect of 4690
candidates could be undertaken and completed. We record said                   B
submission and proceed on that premise. We have also been given to
understand that the first round of counseling has already begun.
       12. Having considered the entirety of the matter, we give following
directions:
      A). The exercise of applying normalization formula as suggested          C
      by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate and revising the scores
      of 4690 candidates shall be completed by 15.06.2018. Respondent
      Nos.2 and 3 namely the National University of Advance Legal
      Studies, Kochi and Core Committee-Common Law Admission Test
      2018 through its Convenor –Vice Chancellor, National University          D
      of Advance Legal Studies, Kochi shall undertake the entire
      exercise and complete it by 15.06.2018.
      B). Upon completion of said exercise, the revised scores of 4690
      candidates will be published by respondents 2 and 3 on the official
      website on 16.06.2018.                                                   E
      C). Based on such revised scores the merit list will be rearranged
      in terms of Para 3 of the suggestion given by the Committee. In
      other words, the revised position of the concerned candidate will
      be indicated by rank Nos.51A-51B as illustrated by the
      Committee.                                                               F
      D). The first round of counseling which began on 10.06.2018 shall
      go on without any impediment and if any candidate is allocated a
      seat, such allocation will not in any way stand adversely altered
      as a result of revised position granted to any of the candidates
      from the body of 4690 candidates.
                                                                               G
      E). If any candidate from the body of 4690 candidates is otherwise
      entitled, that is to say even without the benefit of revised score, to
      be allocated any seat, it goes without saying that such allocation
      will not in any way stand adversely affected.
                                                                               H
26            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A          F). In the second round of counseling the rank/merit list so prepared
           in terms of these directions shall be the governing list and the
           seats in second and subsequent rounds of counseling will be
           allocated on the basis of the list so revised in pursuance of these
           directions.
B          G). If a candidate, as a result of revised rank list being operative
           in second and subsequent round of counseling wants to secure
           admission in any other college of his or her choice going by his or
           her revised ranking, he/she shall be allowed to do so without
           incurring any disadvantage. In such cases, the fees if deposited in
           the first college shall be given due credit against the admission in
C          the second college which the candidate may opt for as a result of
           revised ranking.
            13. We have dealt with the matter only from the stand point of
     how best to compensate the candidates who lost valuable time while
     undergoing test. We must record that we are not at all satisfied with the
D    way the examination was conducted. The body which was given the
     task of conducting the examination was duty bound to ensure facilities
     of uninterrupted UPS and generator facility. The record indicates
     complete inadequacy on that point. We therefore direct Union of India
     in the Ministry of Human Resources and Development to appoint a
E    Committee to look into the matter and take appropriate remedial
     measures including penal action, if any, against the body which was
     entrusted with the task. The committee so constituted shall also look
     into the aspect of having completely satisfactory arrangements in future
     so that no such instances are repeated or reoccur in coming years. We
     must also observe that the idea of entrusting the task of monitoring the
F    conduct of entire examination to different Law Universities every year
     also needs to be re-visited. The agreement with the examination
     conducting body, which was placed on record indicates that as against
     the amount made over to such examination conducting body, the fees
     charged from the candidates are far in excess. The committee shall
G    bestow consideration to all these aspects after having inputs from such
     sources as it may deem appropriate including Bar Council of India and
     make a detailed report to this Court within three months from today.
            14. Since we have dealt with the matter and passed comprehensive
     directions, we request the High Courts to dispose of the pending matters
H    raising challenge in respect of CLAT 2018, in the light of our directions.
   DISHA PANCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY                               27
               [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      15. All the petitions are thus disposed of. We record our sincere        A
appreciation for the efforts put in by the members of the Grievance
Redressal Committee and for the assistance rendered by all the learned
counsel.


Nidhi Jain                                            Petitions disposed of.
                                                                               B




                                                                               C




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H