Can’t force university to accept marks not on record: Cal HC in teacher recruitment

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a university cannot be compelled to accept marks that do not match its official records, refusing relief to a candidate selected for a teaching post whose appointment approval remained conditional on producing valid academic documents.

A division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee upheld an earlier order dismissing the candidate’s plea, observing that there was “no basis” to direct the university to recognise marks that did not tally with its database.

The case centred on a former chemistry honours student who had secured 25 and 29 marks in two papers. He later claimed that, upon review, his marks had increased and relied on a post-review marksheet reflecting higher scores. However, the university maintained that no change had been recorded after re-evaluation and that the marksheet produced by him did not match its official records.

The court noted a key inconsistency in the candidate’s stand. While he later relied on a post-review marksheet, he had earlier stated in an application that such a marksheet had never been issued to him.

Significantly, the bench observed that if the marks shown in a document do not match the university’s database, such a document must be treated as fake or forged and cannot be the basis for issuing fresh certificates.

The candidate had qualified in the teacher eligibility process and joined a school in December 2024, but approval of his appointment was subject to the submission of his original academic records.

The court also took note of allegations that a racket had been operating within the university at the relevant time, issuing fake marksheets to candidates seeking better results, with criminal proceedings initiated against certain officials.

Another factor weighing against the candidate was the delay. The bench pointed out that he failed to take timely steps to resolve the issue and pursued it seriously only when document verification became necessary for his appointment.

Refusing to interfere, the court said it found no infirmity in the earlier order and dismissed the appeal, reiterating that recruitment cannot rest on marks that are not backed by official records.