Courts Cannot Compel Issuance Of A Marksheet Reflecting Marks That Don’t Match University Records: Calcutta High Court

The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed a writ petition seeking issuance of a marksheet and certificates by treating a post-review marksheet as genuine.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed: “If the said marks do not match with the database of the University, it would not be justified to direct the University to issue a mark sheet reflecting marks which do not tally with its records.”

Senior Advocate Kumarjyoti Tewari appeared for the appellant, while Senior Government Advocate Santanu Kumar Mitra represented the University authorities.

Background

The appellant, a student of a college affiliated to the University, completed his B.Sc. (Honours) in Chemistry in 2014. His original marksheet reflected that he had secured 25 and 29 marks in two papers. Dissatisfied with the marks, he applied for a review of the answer scripts and claimed that a post-review marksheet was issued showing increased marks in the said papers.

It was contended by the appellant that the University had initially accepted his documents and issued a migration certificate after verification, but later refused to issue a provisional certificate because the marks in the post-review marksheet did not match the University’s records. He further contended that the University could not take inconsistent stands and sought a direction to treat the post-review marksheet as genuine and to issue certificates accordingly.

The University, on the other hand, contended that as per its official database, there was no change in the marks after re-evaluation and no post-review marksheet had been issued in favour of the appellant. It was further contended that the marksheets relied upon by the appellant did not match the University’s records and were therefore fake and forged. The University also pointed out that during the relevant period, a racket involving the issuance of fake marksheets had been detected, leading to criminal and disciplinary proceedings against officials.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the factual matrix and noted that the appellant had initially received a marksheet in 2014 reflecting his original marks, and had applied for review thereafter. However, as per the records maintained in the University’s database, no change in marks had been effected after re-evaluation.

The Court took note of the categorical stand of the University that the marks reflected in the post-review marksheet produced by the appellant did not match its official records. It observed: “the marksheet which does not reflect correct marks would inevitably be treated as forged and/or fake document.”

The Court further found that no material had been placed on record to establish that the alleged increase in marks was duly recorded or recognised by the University. It held that the claim of enhancement of marks upon re-evaluation lacked any substantiated basis in the official records.

The Court also noted that the appellant had approached the authorities belatedly and had not taken timely steps to resolve the discrepancy, including seeking answer scripts or clarification when such records were still available. It recorded that answer scripts are preserved only for a limited period, and no steps had been taken within that time frame.

The Court further referred to a similar case where a writ petition challenging the refusal to recognise a marksheet was dismissed on the ground that the marks did not tally with the University’s database, and such a view was affirmed in appeal.

Distinguishing cases relied upon by the appellant, the Court held that in those cases the candidates had approached the Court contemporaneously and the answer scripts were available for verification, whereas in the present case no such material existed to support the appellant’s claim.

Reiterating the principle governing judicial review in such matters, the Court held: “the document cannot be treated as genuine” when it does not match the University’s database, and consequently, no direction can be issued to recognise or reproduce such marks.

Conclusion

The High Court held that there was no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to direct the University to issue a marksheet based on disputed and unverified marks.

Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application were dismissed.

Cause Title: Abhishek Maity v. The West Bengal State University & Ors.

Appearances

Appellant: Kumarjyoti Tewari, Senior Advocate with Advocates Prantick Ghosh, Anirudh Tewari, Amrit Singh, Prasad Bhattacharya

Respondent: Santanu Kumar Mitra, Senior Government Advocate with Advocates Amartya Pal, Mahek Jaiswal

Click here to read/download Judgment