Asad Choudhary Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Supreme Court of India)
University’s Clerical Lapse Cannot Defeat a Genuine Student’s Degree Verification; Marks Mismatch Does Not Negate Undisputed Course Completion
Issue Before the Court
Whether verification of a genuine student’s academic credentials could be withheld because the University omitted his name from a regulatory disclosure list and its internal records contained differing marks, although his admission, participation in examinations and successful completion of the course were established.
The Supreme Court held that an institutional lapse in which the student had no role could not be visited upon him. A limited exercise of reconciling the University’s own records did not justify sending him to another court.
Facts of the Case
The appellant joined Manav Bharti University’s B.Tech. Civil Engineering course for the 2014–2018 session. He received Detailed Marks Certificates for all eight semesters, other academic certificates and a degree recording that he had passed in the first division.
He was subsequently appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the State Taxes Department, Jammu and Kashmir. His employer repeatedly sought verification of his academic credentials from 2022 onwards. However, verification remained pending, affecting confirmation of his appointment and release of salary.
Meanwhile, allegations concerning the sale of degrees by the University led to criminal investigations and seizure of records by a Special Investigation Team. Several students consequently faced difficulties in obtaining academic documents and verification.
A Document Verification Committee was constituted pursuant to High Court proceedings.
Admission and Completion Were Supported by University Records
The University confirmed that the appellant had been admitted against allotted seats in an approved course. His name appeared in its Green Sheet Register and examination records.
However, his name was absent from the admission disclosure list sent to the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission.
In its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the University expressly attributed this omission to a clerical and inadvertent human error by its previous administration. It also admitted that the appellant had cleared all eight semesters and had been issued the corresponding marks certificates.
The Verification Committee independently confirmed his enrolment in the student registration register.
Mismatch in Marks Became a Further Obstacle
The authorities also identified differences between the marks recorded in the result gazette and those appearing in the Green Sheet and certificates for the seventh and eighth semesters.
On this basis, the University maintained that it could not verify the documents. The Committee stated that its role was confined to verification and supply of records, and that it had no authority to create, alter or correct University documents.
The High Court treated the matters as involving disputed questions and left the students, including the appellant, to approach the competent court.
University’s Inconsistent Explanation Rejected
The Supreme Court noticed that the University offered two explanations: omission from the admission disclosure list due to clerical error, and inability to send the appellant’s data because of the later marks discrepancy.
These explanations could not be reconciled. The admission disclosure concerned 2014–2015, while the disputed examination marks concerned December 2017 and May 2018.
A later discrepancy could not explain an earlier omission. The Court therefore accepted the University’s admission that exclusion from the disclosure list resulted from its own clerical lapse.
Student Cannot Bear the Consequences of an Institutional Error
On the affidavits and documents, the Court found no doubt that the appellant was a bona fide student, admitted against an allotted seat, who appeared in and cleared his examinations.
The omission from the regulatory list was attributable to the University, and the appellant had no role in it.
Accordingly, that omission could neither attract adverse consequences against him nor justify withholding verification of his academic credentials.
Different Marks Did Not Dispute the Fact of Passing
The Court drew a distinction between the correct marks secured and whether the appellant had passed the course.
Under either set of figures appearing in the University’s records, his result in both disputed semesters was “pass”. None of the respondents asserted otherwise.
The discrepancy therefore did not undermine his admission, student status or successful course completion. The Court held that he had validly passed the examinations and had been duly conferred the degree.
Only reconciliation of the exact marks remained.
Limited Record Verification Did Not Require Fresh Litigation
The surviving issue depended on examination of the University’s own result records, rather than evidence the student could independently produce.
The Court held that this exercise fell within the verification responsibility already entrusted to the authorities. It did not require creation or alteration of records by the Committee.
Consequently, there was no justification for relegating the appellant to another court merely to resolve that limited discrepancy.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order insofar as it concerned the appellant.
The State was directed to supply the relevant result records to the University. The University was required to issue corrected marks certificates and consequential documents and forward the verification report to the employer within three weeks.
Upon verification, the employer was expected to release salary arrears and consequential benefits within a further four weeks.
Author’s Comments
The judgment requires authorities to distinguish an institution’s defective recordkeeping from a defect in the student’s qualification. Where admission and passing are established, an unresolved discrepancy in marks should be addressed through verification and correction.
The ruling rests on clear institutional admissions and supporting records. It does not validate questionable degrees generally; it protects a genuine student from being denied employment benefits because the institution failed to maintain or reconcile its own records.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (“High Court”) in CWP No.14955 of 2024, decided along with CWPIL No.22 of 2022 and connected petitions, Signature Not Verified whereby the Appellant, alongside other students of Manav Bharti University (“University”), was left to approach the competent court of jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. The grievance of the Appellant is that the University has failed to verify his academic credentials, without which his appointment in government service cannot be confirmed and he has been continuing in service without being paid his salary.
3. The Appellant took admission in the B.Tech (Civil Engineering) course in the University under Admission No. R14BTCE0031 and Registration No. MBU-2014-0964 for the session 2014-2018. He was issued the Detailed Marks Certificates of all eight semesters, the Bonafide, Migration and Character Certificates dated 14.09.2018, and the degree of Bachelor of Technology (Civil Engineering) dated 15.10.2018, which records that he passed the examination held in May 2018 in the first division.
4. After completing the course, the Appellant came to be appointed as Sub-Inspector in the State Taxes Department, Jammu and Kashmir. The Office of the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes (Administration and Enforcement), Kashmir sought verification of his degree from the University vide letters dated 19.05.2022, 22.09.2023 and 06.12.2023. By a further letter dated 11.07.2024, it recorded that the verification report was still awaited, and that the appointment of the Appellant was subject to the verification of his academic certificates.
5. In the meantime, on a complaint regarding the alleged sale of degrees by the University, several cases came to be registered against its then administration, and its records were seized by the Special Investigation Team. As a result, its students were unable to obtain their academic documents from the University. On a letter dated 05.04.2022 addressed by the students to the Chief Justice of the High Court, CWPIL No.22 of 2022 came to be registered, and writ petitions filed by individual students, including CWP No.14955 of 2024 filed by the Appellant, were taken up along with it.
6. In pursuance of the High Court order dated 01.08.2022, a Document Verification Committee (“Committee”) was constituted by the State Government vide Notification dated 16.08.2022 under the chairmanship of the Superintendent of Police, Solan, comprising, amongst others, the Administrator of the University and the Secretary of the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission (“HP-PERC”).
7. On an application made by the Appellant, the University, vide its letter dated 26.07.2024, reported that he was enrolled for the session 2014-15 against the seats allotted by HP-PERC in a course approved by it, that his name was available in the Green Sheet and in the examination record, and that there was no dispute about the year of his admission and registration. It, however, recorded that his name had not been sent to HP-PERC in the admission disclosure list and was not available in the approved list. By a subsequent letter dated 16.11.2024, the Registrar of the University informed the employer of the Appellant that he was a student at the University and forwarded a copy of the Green Sheet.
8. The High Court permitted the students to inspect the Green Register and the Disclosure List at the University, whereupon the University placed on record the status of each of them in a tabulated form, which was disputed by the majority of the petitioners. The PIL, along with the connected petitions including that of the Appellant, came to be disposed of vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 by the High Court observing that it was not in a position to determine such disputed questions and leaving it open to the students to approach the competent court of jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that he was admitted against the seats allotted to the University, passed all semester-wise examinations and was issued all his academic documents including the degree, and that his name finds place in the Green Register as well as in the examination record. His grievance is not the non-issuance of documents but the absence of verification thereof, which his employer has been seeking since the year
2022. The omission of his name from the Admission Disclosure List is a lapse on the part of the University, over which he had no control and for which he cannot be penalised. He further submits that the Appellant has been working without pay owing to the non-verification of his credentials, and that relegating him to a civil court after the PIL had remained pending for over two years would be burdensome and inequitable.
10. The case of the Respondent-State and Respondent No.2-Director General of Police is that the Committee examined the case of the Appellant and found his name enrolled in the Green Register for the session 2014-15, but not in the admission disclosure list for that year. It was further found that the marks of the 7th and 8th semesters recorded in the result gazette, being 783/1300 and 920/1300, did not tally with those reflected in the Green Sheet, being 863/1300 and 946/1300, and the documents of the Appellant could not, therefore, be verified.
11. The University, in its counter affidavit filed before this Court, has stated as follows:-
“1) That the as per allotted seats Petitioner took admission in B. Tech. (Civil Engineering) Course with Respondent No. 3 vide admission/ Registration No. R14BTCE0031/MBU-2014- 0964 for the Academic session of 2014 -2018.
2) That the it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 that, Petitioner has cleared in all the semesters exam 1st to 8th semesters. As per the entry made on green sheet register, Petitioner has been issued all DMCs.
3) That the name of the Petitioner’s is duly reflected in the University’s ‘Green Sheet Register’/Admission Register, which is the primary internal Record maintain by the University. However, due to a clerical and inadvertent human error, by the previous administration of the University Petitioner’s name was not included in the admission disclosure list sent to the HP-PERC.
4) That the it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 that, there appeared a mismatch in gazette and green sheet for 7th and 8th semesters as such the copy of gazette shows marks in 7th and 8th semesters as 783/1300 and 926/1300 respectively and that in green sheet and copy DMCs in 7th and 8th semester shows as 863/1300 and 946/1300 respectively.
5) That the it is also submitted on the behalf of the Respondent No. 3, that the, due to mismatch in copy of gazette and green sheet marks Petitioner’s data could not sent to HPPERC and Petitioner’s documents cannot be verified.”
12. Since the counter affidavit of the University disclosed a discrepancy in the marks of the 7th and 8th semesters, this Court, vide order dated 03.09.2026, directed the Respondent-State to verify the same and file an appropriate affidavit.
13. In compliance thereto, an additional affidavit dated 18.09.2026 has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Solan, who chairs the Committee. It is stated therein that the Appellant was found enrolled in the student registration register for the session 2014-2015 under Admission/Registration No. R14BTCE0031/MBU-2014-0964, but his name was not found in the admission disclosure list sent to HP-PERC, and the result gazette and the Green Sheet of the 7th and 8th semesters reflected the same mismatch of marks, owing to which his documents could not be verified. It is further stated that the role of the Committee is confined to verification and supply of documents to the University, that the record available with it is in photocopies and the original record are with the trial courts, and that the Committee was not entrusted to create, alter or correct any document of the University.
14. As is evident from the above-quoted portion of the counter affidavit, the University has admitted that the Appellant took admission in the B.Tech (Civil Engineering) course as per the allotted seats under Admission No. R14BTCE0031 and Registration No. MBU- 2014-0964 for the academic session 2014- 2018, and that he cleared the examinations of all eight semesters and was issued all the Detailed Marks Certificates. It has affirmed that the name of the Appellant is duly reflected in the Green Sheet Register, which is the primary internal record maintained by the University. It has further stated that, due to a clerical and inadvertent human error on the part of its previous administration, the name of the Appellant was not included in the admission disclosure list sent to HP-PERC. The enrolment of the Appellant in the student registration register for the session 2014-2015 also stands confirmed by the Committee in the additional affidavit filed.
15. The letter of the University dated 26.07.2024 is to the same effect. The only shortfall noted therein is the absence of his name from the admission disclosure list and the approved list, which is the very omission that the University now attributes to its own error. The statement in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the University, that the data of the Appellant could not be sent to HP-PERC on account of the mismatch in marks, cannot be reconciled with paragraph 3 thereof, since the admission disclosure list pertains to the session 2014-15, whereas the mismatch relates to the examinations of December 2017 and May 2018. The explanation in paragraph 3, which accords with the letter dated 26.07.2024, is, therefore, accepted.
16. The affidavits and the documents on record thus leave no manner of doubt that the Appellant was a bona fide student at the University, admitted against an allotted seat, who appeared in and cleared all his examinations. The omission of his name from the admission disclosure list is, on the University’s own admission, a lapse on its part in which the Appellant had no role. Such a lapse cannot be visited with adverse consequences upon the Appellant, nor can it be a ground for withholding the verification of his academic credentials.
17. As far as the discrepancy in the marks of the 7th and 8th semesters is concerned, according to the result gazette, the Green Sheet and the Detailed Marks Certificates issued to him, the result of the Appellant in both semesters on either of the set of figures, reflect as ‘pass’. None of the respondents has suggested otherwise. The discrepancy, thus, does not touch upon the admission of the Appellant, his status as a student at University, or the fact that he passed the course. Therefore, it stands established that the Appellant has validly passed all the examinations, as indeed the entire course and was duly conferred with the degree as per his entitlement.
18. The only issue that survives is as to which of the two sets of marks, both of which form part of the records of the University itself, correctly reflects the marks secured by the Appellant in those two semesters. That issue calls for no more than a verification of the result records of the University, which does not depend upon any evidence that the Appellant could lead, nor require the Committee to create or alter any record, being in the nature of the responsibility of verification entrusted to the Committee.
19. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that no factual dispute is left as far as the Appellant having passed the examinations and obtained the degree is concerned. For the limited exercise of verifying the correct set of his marks does not warrant relegating him to a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside qua the Appellant.
20. The Respondent No.1-State is directed to provide the result records of the 7th and 8th semesters of the Appellant, available with the Committee, to the University. On the basis of records, the University shall issue to the Appellant corrected Detailed Marks Certificates of the 7th and 8th semesters along with such other documents as may be necessary in consequence thereof, and shall forward the verification report of the academic credentials of the Appellant to his employer, the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes (Administration and Enforcement), Kashmir within three weeks from today.
21. Upon receipt of such verification, the employer of the Appellant is expected to release all arrears of salary due to the Appellant, along with all consequential benefits, within a further period of four weeks.
22. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
23. There shall be no order as to cost.
24. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
