Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has held that a B.Tech graduate of Manav Bharti University cannot be made to suffer because the university, through its own clerical lapse, left his name off the list sent to the regulator. It directed the university to issue corrected mark sheets and send the verification report to his employer, and expected the employer to release his salary arrears.
The appellant completed a B.Tech at Manav Bharti University (2014–2018) and got his degree in 2018. He was appointed Sub-Inspector in the J&K State Taxes Department, subject to verification of the degree. Verification stalled after the degree-sale scandal, seizure of the university's records and formation of a State Document Verification Committee.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court declined to decide the facts and left students to civil courts. The university admitted he was admitted against an allotted seat and passed all semesters, and that his name was omitted from the disclosure list through its own lapse.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a student be denied degree verification because of the university's clerical omission and a marks mismatch that does not affect his pass?
The Student Is Not to Blame
The Court held that the university's lapse cannot be held against the student. The mismatch found in his 7th and 8th semester marks did not affect his admission or his pass, since both sets of figures show a pass.
Deciding which marks are correct is a records check requiring no civil suit or evidence from the student. No statutes or precedents were cited; the decision rests on the facts.
What the Court Actually Held
- The High Court order was set aside as regards the appellant.
- The State to provide the semester result records; the university to issue corrected mark sheets and send the verification report to the employer within three weeks.
- The employer is expected to release salary arrears within four weeks of verification.
- Appeal allowed; no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects genuine students caught up in institutional scandals.
- It avoids forcing students into civil suits over records.
- It follows the Court's similar approach in Stuti Sharma concerning the same university.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Students' Counsel
- Rely on the university's own admissions about lawful admission and passing.
- Seek time-bound verification directions.
For Universities
- Correct records promptly and accept responsibility for clerical lapses.
Key Takeaways
- Universities' lapses cannot penalise students.
- Records checks don't need civil suits.
- Verification within three weeks.
- Salary arrears to follow.
Frequently Asked Questions
The university admitted the omission was its own clerical lapse and he had lawfully passed.
It did not affect his pass, and resolving it is a simple records check.
Yes. The Court took a similar view in Stuti Sharma, another student of the same university.
Conclusion
The judgment ensures innocent graduates are not punished for institutional failures.
Practical takeaway: Where a university admits a lapse, seek direct time-bound directions rather than a civil suit.