The Delhi high court served NLU Jodhpur with a notice by email today to respond to a civil writ petition filed in the court yesterday by three Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2012 takers aggrieved by this year’s exam’s content.

The matter which was listed for hearing today was postponed to tomorrow after justice Sunil Gaur on the bench hearing it was on leave today.

The email was sent to Ratan Lahoti – the registrar of NLU Jodhpur.

Lahoti said: “We are unaware of the details. I will go through the writ, because it is an expert’s job, and we will certainly file our reply tomorrow.”

Ujjwal Madan, Shubham Sinha and Osho Donnie Ashok who appeared in CLAT 2012 petitioned against the vice chancellor and registrar of NLU Jodhpur which was the law school convening this year’s CLAT entrance, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the ministry of human resource development (HRD ministry), for questioning examinees on topics which were out of the syllabus prescribed by the CLAT committee for 2012, reported legal website Bar and Bench today.

The petitioners alleged that questions in the “general awareness” and the “legal aptitude” sections of this year’s paper were “directly contrary” to the “syllabus notified to the aspiring candidates”.

CLAT 2012 was held on 13 May 2012 when Legally India had first reported that several aspirants displeased with questions requiring knowledge of “Static GK” and prior legal knowledge planned to file a public interest litigation against the examination committee for 2012, which on its website had eliminated these parts from the syllabus.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta with advocates Vikas Mehta and Aditi Bhat acted for the petitioners, arguing that NLU Jodhpur is not solely responsible for the alleged irregularities, since as CLAT convener the law school represented the 14 national law universities which conduct the exam by rotation every year.

An advocate appearing in the matter told Legally India that since the conduct of the exam was guided by NLU Jodhpur’s registrar the proper course for the petitioners would be to make a representation to him.

He added that any court order made in the matter would disrupt the admission process that will follow the CLAT results which are expected shortly.

Gupta argued that it was too late to make a representation to the registrar now.

Justice Gaur questioned the petitioners on the delay in filing the petition, noting that the delay was untenably attributed to the time required to compile the challenged questions. Gaur observed that two to three days were sufficient for such compilation.