Examination – Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 - Online examination - Normalization formula - Technical glitches in the conduct of the examination - 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 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 methodology. We, therefore, accept the formula and reject the contention of outright cancellation of the entire test.
Held, Technical glitches in the conduct of the examination.
A. Questions of the examination did not appear on the screen at 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. Invigilators were incompetent and unhelpful 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.
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, A 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 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 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 - Since all the details regarding log in and log out times are available in respect of each of those candidates, it is possible to arrive at revised score applying such normalization formula in respect of said candidates - 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 candidates - At the same time, it would also ensure that no prejudice is caused to rest of the candidates.
Examination Rules issued by the National Council of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Rule 4.13 - Short of attendance in the 6th semester by 2.92% to complete the required 75% lectures - Fact cannot be ignored that the petitioner met with an accident - Had attended classes on wheelchair and crutches regularly, without any break, which is considered as an exceptional circumstance in the case of the petitioner, entitling him condonation of the remaining 2.92% lectures, which are short to complete the required 75% lectures - Education. (180) PLR
4/5 updates a week of the latest Supreme Court Judgements (Full Text with headnotes) delivered to your email and your mobile. Take our 1 month trial pack.
Subscription @1000/- per annum