Case at a Glance
Unsuccessful candidates challenged the 2018 appointment of an Assistant Professor of Physical Education at a college affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, alleging his Ph.D. from Bundelkhand University was not genuine. The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused relief, and the Supreme Court upheld that outcome because, under the applicable UGC Regulations 2010, UGC-NET (which he held) was the mandatory qualification and a Ph.D. was not essential. However, noting that the Ph.D. may have earned him extra marks, the Court used Article 142 to direct MDU to hold an inquiry into the degree, with liberty to approach the police if it is found forged.
On 14 February 2018, Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), advertised a post of Assistant Professor of Physical Education. The two appellants, the sixth respondent and 17 others applied. The sixth respondent was selected as the most qualified candidate; the appellants were not in the merit list. Through an RTI application by a relative of the first appellant, Bundelkhand University replied on 11 July 2018 that it ran no Ph.D. programme in 2011–2014, the years in which the sixth respondent claimed his degree was awarded, and a letter of 24 July 2018 stated he had not been awarded a Ph.D.
The appellants’ writ petition (C.W.P. No. 34925 of 2019) was dismissed by a Single Judge on 18 November 2022, who found the RTI material unauthenticated and held the sixth respondent eligible through UGC-NET. A Division Bench dismissed the letters patent appeal on 28 February 2023 as not maintainable for want of locus standi, and a review was dismissed on 21 July 2023. During the Supreme Court proceedings, an affidavit called for on 24 January 2025 from Bundelkhand University reportedly described the degree as “fake and farzi”.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could the appointment be quashed by a writ of quo warranto on the allegation that the appointee’s Ph.D. was not genuine, and was a Ph.D. a mandatory qualification for the post?
Mandatory Qualification vs. Questionable Advantage
The High Court’s Division Bench had held that the appellants lacked locus standi as none were among the top three recommended candidates, and that quo warranto cannot be used for personal grievances arising from a failed selection, relying on A.N. Shastri v. State of Punjab, R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 05 SC CK 0008, Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 03 SC CK 0033 and B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association, (2006) 08 SC CK 0017. Writing for the Bench, Justice Dipankar Datta examined the qualifications: since the advertisement predated the UGC Regulations 2018 (effective 18 July 2018), the UGC Regulations 2010 applied, under which NET/SLET/SET was mandatory, with an exemption for Ph.D. holders under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations. A Ph.D. was not an essential qualification. Since the sixth respondent had qualified UGC-NET, “by no stretch of reasoning can it be concluded that he lacked a mandatory qualification”.
The Court reiterated that a quo warranto petitioner must produce “unimpeachable evidence”, after which the burden shifts to the appointer and appointee. It did not, however, close the matter. It noted that the questionable Ph.D. may have given the sixth respondent up to 10 extra marks and that the second- and third-placed candidates could have challenged the appointment. To “sift the grain from the chaff”, it invoked Article 142 to order an inquiry by MDU into the genuineness of the degree, observing natural-justice safeguards.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under the UGC Regulations 2010, which governed the 2018 advertisement, NET/SLET/SET was the mandatory qualification and a Ph.D. was not essential; the appointee, having UGC-NET, did not lack a mandatory qualification.
- A writ of quo warranto requires unimpeachable evidence from the petitioner; the High Court’s judgments were upheld and the appointment was not disturbed for now.
- Under Article 142, MDU must inquire into the Ph.D.; the appointee must produce the original degree before Bundelkhand University officials and be allowed to defend himself and cross-examine witnesses.
- If the degree is found forged, the universities, the college or anyone else may approach the police; the appeals were disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Allegations of fake degrees in academic appointments are of wide public concern; the Court ensured an inquiry despite dismissing the challenge.
- It clarifies which UGC Regulations apply where an advertisement predates the 2018 Regulations.
- It restates the high evidentiary bar and locus limits for quo warranto in selection disputes.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Job Aspirants
- Being outside the merit list may limit your standing to challenge a rival’s appointment.
- RTI replies alone may not be treated as authenticated proof of a fake degree.
For Counsel
- Identify the regulations in force on the date of the advertisement before arguing eligibility.
- In quo warranto, place authenticated, unimpeachable evidence on record.
- Cite Annu Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University, (2026) 09 SC CK 0786 for an Article 142 inquiry where a degree’s genuineness is in doubt.
Key Takeaways
- UGC Regulations 2010 governed this 2018 recruitment.
- UGC-NET was mandatory; Ph.D. was not essential.
- Quo warranto needs unimpeachable evidence.
- MDU must inquire into the Ph.D. with natural-justice safeguards.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was the Assistant Professor removed?
No. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgments and did not disturb the appointment for now, but ordered MDU to inquire into the Ph.D.
Was a Ph.D. compulsory for the post?
No. Under the UGC Regulations 2010, which applied, NET/SLET/SET was mandatory and a Ph.D. was not an essential qualification.
What happens if the degree is found fake?
The Court said the universities, the college or anyone else may approach the police for prosecution in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The Court balanced the strict requirements of quo warranto with the public interest in genuine credentials, leaving the appointment intact while directing a fair inquiry into the disputed degree.
Practical takeaway: In recruitment challenges, eligibility turns on the regulations in force on the advertisement date; allegations of forged degrees need authenticated proof, but the Court may still order an inquiry under Article 142.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com