01Facts
The applicant’s candidature for the post of Evaluator (Correspondence Courses) was cancelled because his M.A. (Hindi) marksheet recorded English as the medium of instruction.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–6He contended that his degree had been obtained before the cutoff date and that the discrepancy was an error in the marksheet, not the degree; he had submitted an undertaking to provide a corrected marksheet, which the University issued on 1 January 2026.
¶ 7–8, 12–13 · pp. 3–6, 8The applicant challenged the cancellation and sought appointment and consequential benefits.
¶ 1–2, 6 · pp. 2–4The Tribunal heard the application on the pleadings and also considered his request to keep one post vacant pending adjudication.
¶ 1–2, 6 · pp. 2–402Issues
i.Whether the applicant’s candidature could be rejected on the basis of an error in the M.A. (Hindi) marksheet when the degree itself was undisputed and the marksheet had been corrected.
¶ 12–13 · p. 8ii.Whether the applicant was entitled to an offer of appointment and consequential benefits, subject to meeting the other requirements.
¶ 14 · p. 903Law Applied
The Tribunal cited no statute, regulation, or precedent.
¶ 12–13 · p. 8It applied the principle that an error in a marksheet cannot, by itself, justify rejection of a candidate’s claim where the underlying qualification is undisputed and the error has been rectified; the respondents could verify the relevant facts with the competent authority.
¶ 12–13 · p. 804Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant possessed the M.A. (Hindi) degree and that the result had been declared before the cutoff date.
¶ 12–13 · p. 8The discrepancy concerned the medium recorded on the marksheet, not the degree itself, and the corrected marksheet was on record.
¶ 12–13 · p. 8In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the marksheet error could not be the sole basis for rejecting the candidature; the respondents could have verified the discrepancy with the competent authority.
¶ 12–13 · p. 805Holding
The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and quashed the impugned rejection order.
¶ 14–16 · p. 9It directed the respondents to accept the applicant’s candidature and issue an offer of appointment, provided he met all other requirements, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
¶ 14–16 · p. 9The applicant was granted consequential benefits on a notional basis; the pending M.A. was disposed of and no order as to costs was made.
¶ 14–16 · p. 9Original Court PDF
Ankit DidalvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![CAT Restores Hindi Evaluator Candidate’s Candidature After Marksheet’s English-Medium Error Was Corrected, Directs Offer If Other Requirements Are Met. Ankit Didal vs UNION OF INDIA. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/cat-restores-hindi-evaluator-candidates-candidature-after-marksheets-english-medium-error-fec65cb06e45477089bf3b482f87de90.webp)