Introduction:

The case of Abhishek Maity v. The West Bengal State University & Ors. came before the Calcutta High Court in an intra court appeal challenging the decision of a learned Single Judge who had refused to grant relief to the appellant. The appellant Abhishek Maity, a student of B.Sc. Chemistry Honours from Basirhat College under the West Bengal State University, had initially passed his examination in the year 2014 securing 25 and 29 marks in CEMA Papers V and VI respectively. Dissatisfied with his performance, the appellant applied for review of his answer scripts. Subsequently, he claimed that a provisional marksheet dated 29 December 2014 reflected an increase of 7 and 8 marks in the respective papers, thereby enhancing his scores to 32 and 37. Relying upon this purported post review marksheet, the appellant proceeded to pursue further academic and professional opportunities including completion of a B.Ed course, qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Test, and eventually securing appointment as an Assistant Teacher in 2024. However, the appointment was conditional upon submission of his final marksheet and certificate. When the appellant approached the University for issuance of such documents, the institution raised serious objections to the authenticity of the marksheet produced by him, seized the document, and informed him that the marks reflected therein did not correspond with the official records maintained in the University database. The matter thus escalated into litigation, where the appellant sought a direction upon the University to treat the disputed marksheet as genuine and to issue him a pass certificate accordingly. The Division Bench comprising Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee was tasked with examining whether such a direction could be issued in light of conflicting claims regarding the authenticity of the marksheet and the integrity of the University’s records.

Arguments:

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that he had legitimately obtained the provisional marksheet reflecting enhanced marks after the review process and had acted upon the same in good faith. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the marksheet dated 29 December 2014 was issued by the University authorities and therefore carried a presumption of authenticity. It was submitted that the appellant had no role in any alleged irregularities within the University and could not be penalised for administrative lapses or misconduct of officials. The appellant emphasised that he had relied on the marksheet for several years without any objection being raised by the University and had altered his position by pursuing higher education and securing employment. It was further argued that principles of fairness and equity required that the appellant should not be made to suffer at such a belated stage particularly when his career and livelihood were at stake. The appellant also relied upon the fact that he had qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test and had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher albeit conditionally, indicating that his academic credentials had been accepted by competent authorities. It was contended that the University’s action in seizing the marksheet and denying its authenticity was arbitrary and lacked transparency. The appellant further pointed to the delay on the part of the University in raising objections and argued that the institution was estopped from disputing the marksheet after such a long period. It was also submitted that through proceedings under the Right to Information Act, the appellant had sought clarification regarding his marks and the review process, and the University’s response was inadequate and evasive. The appellant attempted to distinguish his case from other instances of alleged forgery by asserting that there was no direct evidence linking him to any fraudulent activity or racket within the University. On the other hand the University and the State authorities strongly opposed the appeal and supported the findings of the learned Single Judge. It was categorically submitted that the marks claimed by the appellant did not match the official database maintained by the University which is the sole authoritative record of examination results. The respondents argued that the marks obtained by the appellant after review remained unchanged and that there was no record whatsoever indicating any increase in marks. It was further contended that the marksheets relied upon by the appellant including those dated 29 December 2014 and 19 April 2015 were not issued through the legitimate system of the University and were therefore fake and forged documents. The University placed reliance on an affidavit stating unequivocally that the disputed documents were not genuine and could not be recognised for any purpose. The respondents also brought to the notice of the Court that during the relevant period a criminal investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department had uncovered a racket operating within the University wherein certain officials had illicitly issued fabricated post review marksheets to students in exchange for illegal gratification. It was pointed out that charge sheets had been filed in connection with the racket and several officials including the Controller and Assistant Controller of Examinations had been suspended. The respondents emphasised that the appellant himself was cited as a witness in the said criminal case which further cast doubt on the legitimacy of the marksheet relied upon by him. It was argued that in such circumstances the Court ought to place reliance on the official database of the University rather than on disputed documents allegedly issued outside the authorised system. The respondents also highlighted the conduct of the appellant in approaching the University for clarification only after a considerable lapse of time and in filing an RTI application nearly nine years after the examination. This delay according to the respondents indicated that the appellant’s claim lacked bona fides. The respondents relied on judicial precedents including the case of Debjani Das where the Court had refused to recognise a marksheet that did not match the University’s records and had held that no direction could be issued to authenticate a forged document. It was contended that permitting such claims would undermine the integrity of the examination system and encourage fraudulent practices.

Judgment:

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court after a comprehensive examination of the facts and submissions dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge. The Court held that the central issue in the case was the authenticity of the marksheet relied upon by the appellant and whether the Court could direct the University to recognise a document that did not correspond with its official records. The Bench observed that the University had consistently maintained that its database did not reflect any change in the appellant’s marks after the review process and that this position was supported by an affidavit on record. The Court emphasised that the official database of the University constitutes the primary and authoritative source of information regarding examination results and cannot be disregarded in favour of disputed documents of doubtful origin. The Court further noted that the marksheets produced by the appellant were allegedly issued during a period when a racket involving issuance of fabricated post review marksheets was operating within the University. The existence of such a racket had been established through a CID investigation and had resulted in criminal proceedings against several officials. In this context the Court found it highly improbable that the disputed marksheet could be treated as genuine merely on the basis of its possession by the appellant. The Bench also took into account the fact that the appellant himself was cited as a witness in the criminal case relating to the racket which further weakened his claim. The Court held that even if the appellant was not directly involved in the fraudulent activities the authenticity of the marksheet could not be presumed in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument based on equity and estoppel holding that principles of fairness cannot be invoked to legitimise a document that is found to be forged. The Bench observed that allowing such claims would set a dangerous precedent and compromise the integrity of the educational system. The Court also distinguished the appellant’s case from other cases such as Ashish Prasad where answer scripts were still available for verification. In the present case the answer scripts had been destroyed in accordance with the University’s policy of preserving them for only six months and therefore no independent verification was possible. The Court held that this fact did not strengthen the appellant’s case but rather underscored the importance of relying on the official database. The Bench further relied on the precedent in Debjani Das which involved an identical situation of a forged marksheet and had been upheld in intra court appeal. The Court reiterated the principle that no mandamus can be issued to compel a statutory authority to act contrary to law or to recognise an illegal or forged document. The Court concluded that the appellant had failed to establish the genuineness of the marksheet and that the University was justified in refusing to issue a pass certificate on that basis. Finding no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and the connected application with no order as to costs thereby reaffirming the primacy of institutional records and the necessity of maintaining integrity in the examination system.