Degree From Unauthorized Institution Is Invalid But Not Fraud Unless Active Role Of Candidate Proved: Orissa High Court

Delineating the difference between a fictitious/fabricated degree and a degree conferred by an unauthorized institution, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad (now retired) and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held–

“What pains us is the mindless & arbitrary act of the answering Respondents in not noticing the subtle difference that exists between a fictitious certificate of qualification and the one secured by the candidate at the hands of an institution that was enlisted by the Regulatory Bodies such as UGC & AICTE as not being authorized to award degree/diploma to the students. It is not the case of Respondent that the Appellant has perpetrated any act of fraud or fabrication.”

The appellant was initially appointed as a Programmer-cum-Training Officer on 06.01.1998. He was subsequently placed in-charge of the post of System Analyst on 28.09.2005 and was absorbed in the said post on 01.03.2006. The post of System Analyst came to be re-designated as Assistant Director with effect from 05.12.2006.

By an order dated 24.12 2020, the appellant was downgraded from Assistant Director, MIS to that of Programmer-cum-Training Officer. The main grounds for such demotion were lack of MCA degree and submission of fabricated degree certificate by the appellant. Against such office order, the appellant filed a writ petition and being aggrieved by the decision therein, this writ appeal was preferred.

Upon considering the admitted facts, the Court placed reliance on State of U.P v. Sughar Singh (1973) to hold that the appellant had a “right of lien” to the post in question notwithstanding the arguable infirmities in the process of selection and appointment. The Bench opined that lien is treated as the “umbilical cord” between the incumbent and the post, which cannot be arbitrarily severed.

Then the Court underlined that the State failed to bring out anything on record to show that MCA was an essential qualification when the appellant was selected and appointed. Thus, it held –

“A qualification not prescribed by law cannot be superimposed by some Officials who have propensity to act as despots. The act of answering Respondent runs contrary to the well-established canons of service law.”

The Bench further, speaking through Justice Shripad, clarified the difference between a fictitious degree and a degree issued by an unauthorized institution. The appellant was conferred the MCA degree by the Naba Bharat Shiksha Parishad Institute, Rourkela that was enlisted by both the AICTE & the UGC as not being authorized to confer MCA degree. Pointing out the effect of such degree, the Court observed–

“Obviously, such enlistment is done when the concerned educational institution does not comply with the requisite conditions for running the classes for particular courses. That is done to ensure that the half-baked candidates are not produced by such institutions, to the disadvantage of society at large. If such institutions award degrees/certificates to the candidates, who have duly prosecuted their courses, that is not a case of fictitious degrees/diplomas. We hasten to add that such degrees/diplomas are invalid. That does not mean fraud & fabrication, unless the candidate concerned too has an active role in all that. However, no such case is alleged and much less made out against the Appellant herein.”

Therefore, the impugned demotion was found to be faulty. So far as the question of granting consequential benefit was concerned, the State resisted the same on the ground that the appellant refrained from joining the downgraded post in the meantime. The Court, however, did not find force in such argument and held that an employee, who has been wrongly reverted to a lower position with no justification whatsoever, cannot be faltered when he does not report for duty in such reversion.

Accordingly, the respondent-authorities were directed to reinstate the appellant in the post of Assistant Director with all service and financial benefits. It was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the appellant as exemplary cost for being treated unfairly. The State was given liberty to recover the cost from the erring officials.

Case Title: Pravat Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.A. No. 2343 of 2024

Counsel of the Appellant: Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Senior Advocate along with Ankita Mukherji, A. Mishra, K. Banerjee, A. Nair & A. Acharya, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.B. Panda, Addl. Govt. Advocate; Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with P. Mohanty, S.N. Dash, S.K. Sahu, K.T. Muduli, P. Pani & K. Panda, Advocates

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 83