Supreme Court Refuses to Remove Assistant Professor Despite Suspected Fake PhD; Holds NET Qualification Sufficient but Orders Fresh University Inquiry Into Degree’s Authenticity
Suspected Fake PhD Does Not Invalidate Appointment Where NET Was Mandatory Qualification: Supreme Court Orders University to Investigate Degree and Possible Deceit
Facts
The dispute arose from the appointment of Respondent No. 6 as Assistant Professor of Physical Education at Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated with Maharshi Dayanand University (“MDU”).
The post was advertised on 14 February 2018. The appellants, Respondent No. 6 and 17 other candidates applied. Respondent No. 6 emerged as the most-qualified candidate and was appointed, whereas the appellants did not figure in the merit list.
Subsequently, an RTI query was addressed to Bundelkhand University, from where Respondent No. 6 claimed to have obtained his PhD. The University stated that he had never attended a PhD course there and that no PhD programme had been conducted during 2011–2014, the period during which he claimed to have obtained the degree.
Material subsequently placed before the Supreme Court raised even more serious concerns. Bundelkhand University’s affidavit indicated that the claimed degree was “fake and farzi”; a purported verification letter dated 15 September 2018 was stated to be forged, and another certificate was alleged to have been fabricated.
The appellants had filed a writ petition seeking quo warranto, contending that Respondent No. 6 had secured a public office on the strength of a forged PhD degree. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected their challenge.
They consequently approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued to remove Respondent No. 6 from the post of Assistant Professor on account of the allegedly forged PhD degree.
- Whether a PhD was an essential qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor of Physical Education under the applicable UGC Regulations.
- Whether Respondent No. 6’s undisputed UGC-NET qualification independently satisfied the mandatory eligibility requirement.
- Whether the appellants, despite being unsuccessful candidates who did not figure in the merit list, could maintain a quo warranto challenge.
- Whether the serious material concerning the allegedly forged PhD nevertheless required an independent inquiry even though the appointment could not presently be disturbed.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants contended that Respondent No. 6 had secured his appointment by relying upon a forged PhD degree and had thereby unlawfully usurped a public office.
They sought a writ of quo warranto to challenge his authority to continue as Assistant Professor.
Their case was substantially founded upon information obtained from Bundelkhand University indicating that Respondent No. 6 had not pursued a PhD programme there during the period claimed and had not been awarded the degree.
The material subsequently obtained directly from Bundelkhand University before the Supreme Court substantially strengthened the allegation concerning the degree’s authenticity.
Respondents’ Arguments
MDU had contended before the High Court that the RTI material relied upon by the appellants was itself doubtful because it lacked proper authentication.
It further asserted that it had independently verified Respondent No. 6’s PhD from Bundelkhand University and had found the degree to be in order.
More importantly, the respondents maintained that Respondent No. 6 had admittedly qualified UGC-NET. Therefore, irrespective of the controversy concerning his PhD, he possessed the essential qualification required for appointment.
The Division Bench had additionally held that the appellants lacked locus standi because they were unsuccessful candidates who did not figure among the top three candidates recommended for appointment.
Analysis of the Law
Applicable UGC Regulations
The Supreme Court first determined the applicable qualification regime.
The UGC Regulations, 2018 came into force only on 18 July 2018, whereas the recruitment advertisement had been issued on 14 February 2018. Therefore, the 2018 Regulations could not govern the recruitment.
The applicable framework was the UGC Regulations, 2010.
Under those regulations, qualifying NET/SLET/SET constituted the mandatory eligibility requirement. Candidates holding a PhD awarded in accordance with the UGC PhD Regulations, 2009 were exempted from NET/SLET/SET.
Thus, a PhD was not independently mandatory for a candidate who had already qualified NET.
Scope of quo warranto
The Court explained that even a stranger can seek a writ of quo warranto.
However, to succeed, the petitioner must establish through unimpeachable evidence that the person occupying the public office lacks the requisite qualification or suffers from some legal disqualification and has thereby usurped the office.
Once such unimpeachable material is produced, the burden shifts to the appointer and appointee to rebut the allegation.
This meant that the appellants’ failure to secure selection did not by itself answer the legal test. The decisive question was whether Respondent No. 6 lacked an essential qualification.
Precedent Analysis
The Division Bench had relied upon several Supreme Court decisions governing the scope of quo warranto, including:
- A.N. Shastri v. State of Punjab
- R.K. Jain v. Union of India
- Dr B. Singh v. Union of India
- B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association
These authorities address the limited nature of quo warranto jurisdiction and its distinction from a challenge mounted merely to vindicate an unsuccessful candidate’s personal grievance.
The Supreme Court, however, articulated the governing test more specifically: the writ petitioner, who may even be a stranger, must demonstrate that the appointee lacks the requisite qualification or suffers from a legal disability preventing him from holding the public office.
Accordingly, the decisive defect in the appellants’ case was not simply their status as unsuccessful candidates, but their inability to establish that Respondent No. 6 lacked the mandatory qualification necessary to occupy the post.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court found that Respondent No. 6 had admittedly qualified UGC-NET. Therefore, he possessed the mandatory eligibility qualification.
A PhD was merely an alternative route to eligibility for persons who had not qualified NET/SLET/SET and could additionally carry marks in the selection process.
Consequently, even if Respondent No. 6’s PhD was questionable, the Court could not conclude that he was legally unqualified to occupy the post. The essential foundation for issuing quo warranto was therefore absent.
The Supreme Court accordingly agreed with the High Court and declined to disturb Respondent No. 6’s appointment “for the present.”
However, the Court identified an important qualification.
A PhD attracted 10 additional marks in the selection process. The Court expressly recognised that Respondent No. 6 might have “stole[n] a march” over the second and third candidates because of marks awarded for the questionable PhD. Had either of those candidates challenged the appointment, the situation could have been different.
More significantly, the Supreme Court refused to ignore the evidence produced by Bundelkhand University suggesting that the degree was forged.
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, it directed MDU to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the PhD and whether Respondent No. 6 had deceived the University by projecting himself as a PhD holder.
Respondent No. 6 must produce the original PhD degree before officials of Bundelkhand University. He must receive a proper opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine witnesses, and the inquiry must comply with principles of natural justice.
If the degree is ultimately found to be forged, MDU, Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Bundelkhand University or any other person would be free to provide information to the police for criminal prosecution in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court did not remove Respondent No. 6 from the post of Assistant Professor and upheld the High Court’s refusal to issue quo warranto because he independently possessed the mandatory UGC-NET qualification.
However, the Court found the documentary material regarding his PhD sufficiently serious to warrant further action.
It therefore invoked Article 142 and permitted/directed MDU to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the PhD degree, following principles of natural justice. If the degree is found forged, appropriate further action, including criminal prosecution, may be initiated.
The civil appeals were accordingly disposed of, with parties bearing their own costs.
Case Details
Case: Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24737–24739 of 2023; 2026 INSC 968
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
Date: 8 September 2026
Result: Appointment not disturbed and quo warranto relief denied; Supreme Court invoked Article 142 for a fresh inquiry into the allegedly forged PhD, with criminal action permissible if forgery is established.
