Back
Teacher's Dream Derailed: Calcutta HC Rejects Plea for Forged Marksheet Validation
In a stark reminder that official records trump disputed documents, a of the has dismissed an appeal by Abhishek Maity, a TET-qualified assistant teacher. Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee upheld a single judge's order refusing to direct to treat a purported post-review marksheet as genuine or issue related certificates. Maity, who relied on the document for B.Ed studies and a school job, now faces hurdles in appointment approval.
From Modest Marks to Migration—and a Marksheet Mystery
Abhishek Maity, a 2014 B.Sc. Chemistry Honours graduate from Basirhat College affiliated to , initially scored 25/100 and 29/100 in CEMA Papers V and VI of Part-III. These edged him over the 30% aggregate pass threshold for a General degree but short of 40% for Honours.
Dissatisfied, Maity applied for review in . He claims a provisional marksheet dated , showed increases to 32 and 37 marks, followed by a final one in . Armed with these, the university issued a migration certificate in for his B.Ed. But trouble brewed in when he sought a provisional certificate: officials seized his marksheet, citing a mismatch with university records.
Years later, after qualifying TET in and joining Kumarpur Parashmoni Sikshbitan (H.S.) as a teacher in —conditional on originals—the discrepancies resurfaced. RTI queries in yielded denials: answer scripts are kept only six months, no review changes occurred, and his marksheets didn't match the database.
Appellant's Stand: Good Faith and University's Flip-Flop
Maity argued he acted , receiving the revised marksheet post-review from university staff like Kousik Bhattacharya. The migration certificate proved prior acceptance, he said, slamming the university's later reversal as inconsistent and exploitative. Absent from any criminal probe—merely a witness in a related case—he urged the court to direct certificate issuance, citing Ashish Prasad's case where intervention led to relief.
University's Rebuttal: Racket-Exposed Forgery, Not a Review Win
The university countered with database evidence: original marks unchanged post-review, no fresh marksheet issued per rules. Both 2014 provisional and final marksheets were "," per a verification by its Confidential Printer. A notorious racket during illicitly pumped up review applicants' scores, leading to probes, charge-sheets, suspensions of the Controller and Assistant Controller of Examinations. Maity's nine-year delay in pursuing originals mirrored dismissed cases like Debjani Das.
Precedents Seal the Database's Supremacy
The bench distinguished , where timely action and available scripts prompted university relenting post- review. In contrast, saw rejection of a similar forged marksheet amid the same racket—negligent delay decried. No basis to diverge here.
Court's Unyielding Logic: Forgery Can't Be Forced into Legitimacy
"If the marks shown in the said mark sheet do not tally with the records maintained in the database of the University, the document cannot be treated as genuine."(Para 33)
Scrutinizing timelines, the court noted Maity's 2014 review yielded no official revision, yet he flaunted fakes for TET and employment. RTI claims contradicted his own filings. The migration predated full racket exposure but couldn't override verified records.
"The marksheet which does not reflect correct marks would inevitably be treated as forged and/or fake document."(Para 31)
Verdict Echoes Caution for Credential Hunters
The appeal () and stand dismissed sans costs. No direction for certificates based on mismatches. For aspiring educators leaning on dubious docs from scandal-tainted eras, this underscores: university databases reign supreme. Maity's job hangs in balance, highlighting risks of unverified upgrades amid institutional fraud.
