TET-Qualified Teacher Cannot Rely On Fake Marksheet To Secure Approval Of Appointment: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Abhishek Maity seeking a direction upon West Bengal State University to treat a purported 2014 post-review marksheet as genuine and to issue him a pass certificate accordingly.

A Division Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee upheld the Single Judge's refusal, holding that the marks claimed by the appellant do not match the University's official database and that the document relied upon appears to be a forged marksheet issued during the period when a racket operated within the University.

The appellant, a B.Sc. Chemistry (Honours) candidate of Basirhat College who passed in 2014, had originally secured 25 and 29 marks in CEMA Papers V and VI. After applying for review, he claimed that a provisional marksheet dated 29 December 2014 showed an increase of 7 and 8 marks, which would raise his scores to 32 and 37. Relying on this document, he later pursued B.Ed studies, qualified the TET examination, and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2024—though his appointment was made subject to submission of his final marksheet and certificate.

When the appellant approached the University for his provisional and final certificates, the institution seized the marksheet he produced and informed him that the marks did not tally with the University's records. Through RTI proceedings, the University later stated that answer scripts are preserved only for six months and that its database shows no change whatsoever in the appellant's marks after review. The University categorically stated on affidavit that both the 29 December 2014 and 19 April 2015 marksheets relied upon by the appellant are “fake and/or forged”.

The Court noted that during the relevant period, a CID investigation uncovered a racket within the University where officials illicitly issued fabricated post-review marksheets to students. Charge-sheets were filed and multiple officials, including the Controller and Assistant Controller of Examinations, were suspended. The appellant himself is a cited witness in that criminal case. The Bench held that the University's consistent position—that its official database shows no revised marks—cannot be discarded merely because a disputed document was issued from outside the legitimate system.

The Bench also held that the appellant's conduct, including approaching the University for clarification only years later and applying under RTI nine years after the exam, distinguished his case from those like Ashish Prasad, where answer scripts were still available. The Court further relied on a precedent in Debjani Das—an identical forgery case—which had been affirmed in intra-court appeal, holding that a candidate cannot seek recognition of a marksheet that does not match the University's records.

Finding no reason to differ from the Single Judge's findings, the Division Bench held that no direction can be issued to compel the University to authenticate a forged document or issue certificates on that basis. The appeal and connected application were accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Case: Abhishek Maity Vs. The West Bengal State University & Ors.

Case No: FMA 1219 of 2025

Click here to read order