At least 50 Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2013 candidates were allotted different law schools than what was initially announced nearly two weeks ago, after the CLAT 2013 convenor HNLU Raipur released a significantly revised allotment list to correct errors.
In the re-allotment many candidates have been shunted to law schools ranked lower than the ones they were originally allotted on 2 June.
Bump one
The cut-offs moved up by a rank for NLSIU Bangalore, Nalsar Hyderabad, NUJS Kolkata and NLU Jodhpur and others.
The result of Shambhavi Pandey had been “withheld” at the date of publication of the original list but has been allocated a rank of 24-A, giving her the 25th available seat in NLSIU’s incoming batch.
As a consequence, rank 59 Mahima Priyani, who was the last person within NLSIU’s cut-off in the original general list, has now been allocated a seat at Nalsar.
This also appears to have pushed rank 104, Vishnu Sumanth, off Nalsar’s last cut-off seat to NUJS, rank 223 Sayan Deb from NUJS to Jodhpur and rank 318 Addway Bandyopadhyay was moved from Jodhpur to HNLU Raipur in the preferences, which was two places behind Jodhpur in terms of students initial CLAT college preferences.
Musical chairs
Legally India identified at least 28 general list candidates who were previously allotted CNLU Patna, but who have now been allocated seats at Nuals Kochi, while several others were moved from CNLU to NLUO Cuttack, NUSRL Ranchi, NLUJ Assam and RGNUL Patiala.
Dozens of students who were allotted colleges in the original list were then apparently moved to fill the new gaps at CNLU, with NUSRL Ranchi now having been left with only 24 general list candidates after ‘losing’ at least 10 previously allocated candidates to CNLU.
HNLU Raipur notified yesterday that the first list was revised in order to allot seats to three candidates whose results were “withheld” previously, some whose preferences were mistakenly mixed up between Nuals Kochi, CNLU Patna, NUSRL Ranchi, NLUO Cuttack, and NLUJ Assam, and some others who were earlier denied certain reserved seats.
Five students from Kerala had complained and launched legal action after they said they had picked Nuals and were allocated CNLU, while the diversity programme IDIA alleged that certain reserved categories were not accounted for correctly.
HNLU Raipur vice chancellor Prof Sukhpal Singh told Legally India that the upward shift in cut-offs was attributable only to the error made by the convenor’s IT contracting agency, which was explained in yesterday’s notification. He said that he had received no complaints yet from those shifted to less preferred universities in the second list.
Super 30
According to Legally India’s Super-30 analysis of the revised first list, Nuals Kochi is now back above CNLU Patna with a Super 30 rank of 494 where Patna’s rank is now 685.
However, Nuals still dropped one place in CLAT taker preferences compared to last year, now being in ninth place, displaced by RMLNLU Lucknow. All other college preferences remain identical to that of 2012 CLAT takers, except for a slight shift between the two lowest-ranked colleges.
The Super 30 has been calculated over the last three years by averaging the all India ranks of the 30 top CLAT scorers choosing each college in the general list.
The CLAT 2012 first university allotment list also had to be reshuffled after candidates reported errors. Two writs were then filed against the CLAT committee and convenor, NLU Jodhpur, last year.
Download new provisional allotment list (vs previous erroneous 2013 allotment list)
2013 revised CLAT preferences by Super 30 rank
| 2013 Super 30 preference | 2012 Super 30 pref | 2013 Super 30 score (and earlier erroneous scores) | 2013 Highest general list rank* | ‘13 Lowest general list rank* | ‘13 Cut-off mark* | 2012 Highest rank | ‘12 Lowest rank | ‘12 Cut-off | ‘12 Super 30 score | ‘12 General list places | 2011 Super 30 pref | Founded | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NLSIU Bangalore | 1 | 1 | 15.5* | 1 | 59 | 140.5 | 1 | 58 | 145 | 16.6 | 55 | 1 | 1987 |
| Nalsar Hyderabad | 2 | 2 | 71.7* | 30 | 104 | tbc | 11 | 102 | 142 | 70.2 | 41 | 2 | 1998 |
| NUJS Kolkata | 3 | 3 | 120.7* | 49 | 223 | 130.75 | 20 | 215 | 138 | 116.5 | 78 | 3 | 1999 |
| NLIU Bhopal | 4 | 4 | 169.1* | 79 | 245 | 129.75 | 103 | 273 | 136 | 185.2 | 33 | 4 | 1997 |
| NLU Jodhpur | 5 | 5 | 216.6* | 88 | 318 | 127 | 78 | 312 | 135 | 198.2 | 75 | 5 | 2001 |
| GNLU Gandhinagar | 6 | 6 | 321.9* | 196 | 429 | 123.75 | 219 | 455 | 132 | 326.4 | 78 | 6 | 2003 |
| HNLU Raipur | 7 | 7 | 395.6 (400.1*) | 322 | 529 | 116.75 | 270 | 528 | 131 | 382.5 | 60 | 7 | 2003 |
| RMLNLU Lucknow | 8 | 9 | 427.9 (427.8*) | 238 | 577 | 120.5 | 329 | 595 | 130 | 464.2 | 64 | 8 | 2006 |
| Nuals Kochi | 9 (10*) | 8 | 493.9 (553.5*) | 201 | 763 | 116.75 | 190 | 638 | 130 | 439.7 | 41 | 9 | 2005 |
| RGNUL Patiala | 10 (11*) | 10 | 583.3 (586.5*) | 493 | 698 | 118 | 208 | 692 | 129 | 536.9 | 71 | 10 | 2006 |
| NLUO Orissa | 11 (12*) | 11 | 577.8 (623.3*) | 277 | 863 | 115.5 | 323 | 816 | 128 | 595.2 | 78 | n/a | 2009 |
| CNLU Patna | 12 (9*) | 12 | 685.3 (545.5*) | 303 | 759 | 116.75 | 313 | 797 | 128 | 694 | 58 | 11 | 2006 |
| NLUJA Assam | 13 | 14 | 770.5 (790.1*) | 667 | 833 | 115.75 | 408 | 857 | 127 | 800.6 | 30 | n/a | 2009 |
| NUSRL Ranchi | 14 | 13 | 785+** (797.7*) | 345 | 789 | 116.5 | 490 | 839 | 127 | 775.4 | 24 | n/a | 2010 |
*Calculation based on erroneous CLAT preferences released on 2 June 2013
**Only 24 general list ranks could be identified at NUSRL Ranchi in the revised list, meaning its actual super 30 score should be lower than what is stated.
Comments
Anyway, here goes your comment (which has now been published on the original Super 30 story too).
[quote]Hi Kian,
Nothing personal, but please don't use strong language while speaking about any University. Frankly, to my mind, there a lot of factors which influence a student to prefer a college over the other. For eg - Assuming the 160th CLAT rank holder (from Tamilnadu) wanted to study law, but couldn't make it through to NLS or NALSAR. Now, if the student was not given the option to move beyond South India for personal reasons and ends up in NUALS, does that indicate his/her choice? I personally know of a batch in NUALS which has around 10 people ranked above 350 and most of them chose NUALS for the primary reason that they were Keralites. Does this speak of the University's performance or the students' choice?
True, the scores do indicate a trend. But they are not complete by themselves. They are just an indicator. And if they are used to pass conclusive judgments with disparaging language, to my mind again, that's incorrect.[/quote]
Agree with you fully, these preferences mean almost nothing about the quality of a college (except perhaps about generating a perception about the 'quality' of future batches).
As such, all these 'rankings' do are preferences, and any 'strong' language we used about Nuals would (or should) have made clear that it is referring to CLAT takers' preferences. I think the article was pretty clear throughout on that, and when we said Nuals was the "worst performer", it was in that context.
And in any case, you could argue that even under the new rankings, Nuals is still the "worst performer", being the only older college to have dropped in rank?
Best wishes,
Kian
Kian used a word in some context. It was pointed by some user that he didn't like it, Kian explained the context. Now if someone is offended, he can chose not to read the piece or nay material of the site.
Press makes its choices and if they can back them up in good faith, and promptly as done by Kian I do not see any reason for the readership to censor them in that regard!
But if you still feel the need to go ahead with such posts, I guess we can agree to disagree!
P.S - Thanks for clarifying on my previous comment issue. Had guessed it as oversight. That's how I started my comment, on this post, on a lighter note. Thanks
See Kian, the kid's being so nice to you!
It has been stated in the above article that "Only 24 general list ranks could be identified at NUSRL Ranchi in the revised list, meaning its actual super 30 score should be lower than what is stated."
In that case, please update the table so that in future, if some aspirant sees this article, wrong info should not be given..
Can the CLAT committe / CLAT convenor do this king of "bumping". To my knowledge, once a party makes a promise/offer and another party takes any step on the basis of the promise/offer, the promisor/offeror cannot go back on the promise. Under the Indian law of "estoppel", the students do not need to establish that reliance on the promise caused them any detriment. If a student communicated acceptance of the allotment, even better - offer and acceptance of seat allocation becomes binding. The CLAT committee cannot go back and "bump" students.