A university’s clerical omission cannot justify withholding verification of a bona fide student’s degree.

The appellant completed a B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) course at Manav Bharti University for the 2014–2018 session and was issued his marksheets and degree.

His government employer repeatedly sought verification of his credentials, which remained pending; the appellant consequently continued in service without salary.

The University confirmed that he was enrolled, passed all eight semesters, and appeared in its Green Sheet Register, but his name was omitted from the admission disclosure list due to an acknowledged clerical error.

The University and the State also identified discrepancies between the Green Sheet and result gazette marks for the seventh and eighth semesters.

The High Court had left the appellant to pursue his claim before a competent court. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the University’s omission of the appellant’s name from the admission disclosure list could justify withholding verification of his academic credentials, despite the University’s confirmation of his enrolment and successful completion of the course.

2. Whether the discrepancy in the seventh- and eighth-semester marks required the appellant to be relegated to a competent court, or could be resolved through verification of the University’s records.

The judgment identifies no statute or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applies the principle that a student should not suffer adverse consequences for an administrative error attributable to the University, where the University’s records establish the student’s bona fide enrolment and successful completion of the course.

It also treats verification of conflicting marks appearing in University records as an administrative verification exercise where the discrepancy does not undermine the student’s enrolment, passing of the course, or entitlement to the degree.

The University admitted that the appellant had been admitted against an allotted seat, had passed all semesters, and had been issued marksheets; the Committee also confirmed his enrolment.

The omission from the disclosure list was attributed by the University to its own clerical error and therefore could not justify withholding verification.

Although the marks recorded for the seventh and eighth semesters differed, both sets of figures showed a passing result, and no respondent disputed that the appellant had passed the course.

The remaining question concerned which marks were correct—a matter the Court held could be resolved by checking the University’s records, without requiring the appellant to litigate in a competent court.

It directed the State to provide the relevant result records held by the Committee to the University, which was to issue corrected marksheets and necessary consequential documents and send a verification report to the appellant’s employer within three weeks.

Upon receiving the verification, the employer was expected to release the appellant’s salary arrears and consequential benefits within a further four weeks.

The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.