Supreme Court has declined to set aside the appointment of an Assistant Professor despite prima facie material indicating that the Ph.D. degree relied upon by him may be fake, holding that the disputed doctoral degree was not an essential qualification for the post as he had independently fulfilled the mandatory requirement of qualifying the UGC-NET examination. At the same time, the Court directed Maharshi Dayanand University to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the Ph.D. degree.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan passed the order while deciding appeals arising from a challenge to the appointment of an Assistant Professor of Physical Education at Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University.

The appellants, as the writ petitioners, challenged the appointment of the sixth respondent as the Assistant Professor questioning the authenticity of his Ph.D. degree, allegedly awarded by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. 

The Single Bench and Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the Writ petition, questioning the locus of the Appellants, as their names have not appeared in the merit list, as they remained unsuccessful.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Datta observed that since Respondent No.6 possessed the eligibility to be appointed to the post of  Assistant Professor after clearing the UGC NET, his appointment remained undisturbed. 

Examining the applicable UGC regulations, the Bench noted that qualifying the UGC-NET, SLET or SET was the mandatory qualification under the relevant 2010 regulations. Candidates who possessed a Ph.D. awarded in accordance with the applicable UGC regulations were exempted from the NET/SLET/SET requirement. The Court further observed that the recruitment criteria applicable in Haryana required compliance with UGC and State Government rules.

The Court found that the post did not require a Ph.D. as an essential qualification. Instead, the Ph.D. was a desirable qualification, while candidates without NET/SLET/SET qualification were required to possess a valid Ph.D. The sixth respondent had undisputedly qualified the UGC-NET examination.

“…by no stretch of reasoning can it be concluded that he lacked a mandatory qualification; although, we hasten to observe that it is quite possible that he stole a march over the second and the third candidates in the merit list by dint of marks being awarded for the questionable Ph. D. degree. Had any or both of them questioned the appointment of the sixth respondent, the situation could have been otherwise.”, the Court said.

Court however doubts the Ph.D degree

Information obtained under the Right to Information Act from Bundelkhand University in July 2018 stated that the candidate had never attended any Ph.D. course at the university and that no Ph.D. programme had been conducted there during 2011–2014, the period during which he claimed to have obtained the degree.

An affidavit filed by the Registrar or Controller of Examinations of Bundelkhand University also described the degree as “fake and farzi”, while another document allegedly issued by the university was stated to be forged.

Therefore, the Bench said it could not “turn a blind eye” to the material that had emerged during the proceedings.

Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court directed a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the Ph.D. degree of Respondent No. 6.

“This is a fit case, where exercise of power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution is warranted. Documentary evidence on record does necessitate an inquiry to be conducted by Maharshi Dayanand University against the sixth respondent, once again, for verifying his Ph. D. degree in the light of the disclosures made by Bundelkhand University and to reach a satisfaction that the Ph. D. degree is genuine and that the sixth respondent never deceived it by projecting himself as a Ph. D. degree holder. If the sixth respondent has indeed secured an appointment by deceit, at the very inception of the process, mere disposal of these appeals without any positive order as claimed by the appellants will not be a protective shield for such appointment to be sustained.”, the Court said.

“Maharshi Dayanand University is, thus, granted full liberty to undertake an inquiry to sift the grain from the chaff. In the inquiry, the sixth respondent shall be required to produce his Ph. D. degree in original in the presence of the officials of Bundelkhand University who, in turn, shall be required to produce documentary evidence based on which the affidavit before this Court came to be filed. The sixth respondent will be given opportunity to raise effective defence and extended the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Depending on the inquiry, which is to be conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, further steps as permitted in law may be taken. We hasten to add that the inquiry need not be influenced by any observation made in this judgment, which is to be read as one necessary for the purpose of proper disposal of the appeals.”, the Court held.

The Supreme Court made it clear that if the inquiry establishes that the Ph.D. degree is forged, the university, the college, Bundelkhand University or any other person would be free to provide information to the police for prosecution for a criminal offence in accordance with law.

It is also made clear that should the outcome of inquiry be unfavourable to the sixth respondent, that is, the Ph. D. degree is found to be a forged document, it shall be open to Maharshi Dayanand University or Sat Jinda Kalyana College or Bundelkhand University or anyone else to lay information before the police to prosecute the sixth respondent for a criminal offence, in accordance with law.”, the Court clarified.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was disposed of.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ of Quo Warranto — Essential Requirements and Locus Standi — Scope of Inquiry - To seek and succeed in a proceeding for a writ of quo warranto, the petitioner (even if a stranger) must establish that an appointee lacks the mandatory statutory eligibility/qualifications for occupying a public office or suffers from a statutory disability/disqualification, and has consequently usurped the public office - The initial burden of proof lies heavily on the petitioner to produce unimpeachable evidence, following which the onus shifts to the appointer and appointee - A writ of quo warranto cannot be employed as a vehicle for the vindication of personal grievances by unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection process and failed to qualify on merit - Where the appointee holds the minimum mandatory qualification (here, UGC-NET) and a Ph.D. degree was merely a desirable/alternative qualification under the applicable recruitment rules and UGC Regulations 2010, the appointee cannot be declared to have usurped the public office. [Paras 8, 9, 11–17].

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Inherent Powers — Direction for Independent Inquiry into Genuineness of Academic Degree - Even when declining to disturb the appointment of a candidate on a writ of quo warranto because he held the mandatory UGC-NET qualification, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to prima facie evidence demonstrating that an additional Ph.D. degree used to secure selection was forged or fabricated - In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed the employing University to conduct a full-fledged departmental inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, ensuring presence of original records and officials of the degree-awarding university - If the degree is found to be forged, the appointment will not be protected, and the authorities shall be at liberty to initiate criminal prosecution. [Relied on A.N. Shastri v. State of Punjab, (1998) Supp SCC 127; R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119; B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731; Paras 18–20]

Cause Title: ANNU KUMAR & ANR. VERSUS MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 913

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Ms. Santosh, Adv. Mr. Saboor Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Vemula Raghuraman, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Singh Tomar, Adv. Dr. Parkashvir, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nishant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. Mrs. P S Vijayadharni, Adv. Ms. Shikha Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Prashasti Bagri, Adv. Ms. Saumya Johri, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Adv. Ms. Srishti Jain, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR Ms. Kanika, Adv. Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Prachi Sohi, Adv. Ms. Nitika Dubey, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR