CAT - ['Delhi']Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

CAT Restores Hindi Evaluator Candidate’s Candidature After Marksheet’s English-Medium Error Was Corrected, Directs Offer If Other Requirements Are Met

Ankit Didalv.UNION OF INDIA

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
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and quashed the impugned rejection order.

It also directed

It 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.

The applicant was granted consequential benefits on a notional basis; the pending M.A. was disposed of and no order as to costs was made.

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. 3–6

He 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, 8

The applicant challenged the cancellation and sought appointment and consequential benefits.

¶ 1–2, 6 · pp. 2–4

The Tribunal heard the application on the pleadings and also considered his request to keep one post vacant pending adjudication.

¶ 1–2, 6 · pp. 2–4

02Issues

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. 8

ii.Whether the applicant was entitled to an offer of appointment and consequential benefits, subject to meeting the other requirements.

¶ 14 · p. 9

03Law Applied

The Tribunal cited no statute, regulation, or precedent.

¶ 12–13 · p. 8

It 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. 8

04Reasoning

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. 8

The discrepancy concerned the medium recorded on the marksheet, not the degree itself, and the corrected marksheet was on record.

¶ 12–13 · p. 8

In 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. 8

05Holding

The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and quashed the impugned rejection order.

¶ 14–16 · p. 9

It 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. 9

The 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. 9
CAT - ['Delhi']

Original Court PDF

Ankit DidalvsUNION OF INDIA

CAT - ['Delhi'] · October 22, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment