The Supreme Court has declined to disturb the appointment of an Assistant Professor whose PhD degree was alleged to be forged, holding that the appointee’s UGC-NET qualification independently satisfied the mandatory eligibility criteria for the post.
However, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the disputed PhD degree. It clarified that the appointment would not be protected if the inquiry establishes that it was obtained through deception.
Buy Now: Recovery Of Tax Dues And Penalty Against Legal Heirs Of A Deceased Assessee : Case Compilation
The bench upheld the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the challenge, but observed that it could not “turn a blind eye” to the materials concerning the disputed degree that emerged during the proceedings.
The dispute arose from an advertisement issued by Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, on February 14, 2018, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor of Physical Education. The college is affiliated with Maharshi Dayanand University.
The appellants, the selected candidate and 17 other aspirants applied for the position. Following the selection process, the sixth respondent emerged as the highest-ranked candidate and was appointed. The appellants did not find a place in the merit list.
After the appointment, the brother of the first appellant sought information from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, under the Right to Information Act regarding the authenticity of the selected candidate’s PhD degree.
According to the information furnished by Bundelkhand University on July 11, 2018, the candidate had never attended a PhD programme at the institution. The university reportedly stated that it had not conducted any PhD programme between 2011 and 2014, the period during which the candidate claimed to have obtained the degree.
The appellants subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that the appointment had been secured on the strength of a forged qualification. They contended that the candidate had usurped a public office and sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on November 18, 2022.
The Single Judge relied on Maharshi Dayanand University’s stand that the material obtained under the RTI Act was not properly authenticated. The university also claimed that it had independently verified the PhD degree from Bundelkhand University and found it to be valid.
The High Court further noted that the recruitment criteria required a candidate either to possess a qualifying PhD degree or to have cleared the UGC-NET examination. Since the selected candidate had admittedly qualified UGC-NET, the Single Judge held that he satisfied the eligibility conditions irrespective of the controversy surrounding the PhD degree.
The High Court also took into account that the appellants had not filed a rejoinder controverting the assertions made in the university’s counter-affidavit.
A Division Bench dismissed the appellants’ intra-court appeal on February 28, 2023. It found that neither appellant was among the top three candidates recommended for appointment and consequently held that they lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the selection.
The Division Bench further held that quo warranto jurisdiction could not be used by unsuccessful candidates as a means of pursuing personal grievances arising from a recruitment process. A subsequent review petition and an application seeking condonation of delay were also dismissed.
Before the Supreme Court, the central question was whether a PhD degree constituted a mandatory qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor of Physical Education.
The Court examined the affidavit filed by the University Grants Commission and the regulations governing minimum qualifications for teaching posts.
It noted that the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018, came into force on July 18, 2018. Since the recruitment advertisement was issued on February 14, 2018, the 2018 Regulations did not govern the selection.
The applicable framework was therefore the earlier UGC Regulations of 2010. Under those regulations, clearing the National Eligibility Test conducted by the UGC, or an accredited examination such as SLET or SET, was the mandatory qualification.
Candidates possessing a PhD degree awarded in accordance with the UGC’s 2009 PhD Regulations were exempted from the requirement of qualifying NET, SLET or SET.
The Court consequently found that a PhD was not an essential qualification for candidates who had already cleared UGC-NET. In the present case, the selected candidate had admittedly qualified the UGC-NET examination.
“By no stretch of reasoning can it be concluded that he lacked a mandatory qualification,” the Court observed.
Explaining the principles governing a writ of quo warranto, the Supreme Court held that even a stranger may challenge an appointment to a public office. However, the person seeking such a writ must establish that the appointee lacked the prescribed qualification or suffered from a disqualification that made the occupation of the office unlawful.
The initial burden lies on the writ petitioner to produce unimpeachable evidence supporting the allegation. Once such material is produced, the burden shifts to the appointing authority and the appointee to rebut it and demonstrate that there was no illegality, irregularity or deficiency in the appointment process.
In this case, the Court found that the alleged invalidity of the PhD degree did not establish the absence of an essential qualification because the appointee’s UGC-NET qualification independently made him eligible.
The Supreme Court, therefore, agreed with the High Court that the writ petition and the intra-court appeal did not warrant interference.
Although it upheld the appointment for the present, the Supreme Court recognised that the disputed PhD degree might have affected the candidate’s position in the merit list.
A candidate possessing both a PhD and the NET, SLET or SET qualification was entitled to an additional 10 marks during the selection process. The Court observed that it was possible that these additional marks enabled the selected candidate to gain an advantage over the candidates placed second and third in the merit list.
The Court said that the situation might have been different had either of those candidates challenged the appointment.
The Supreme Court found that the documents placed before it prima facie indicated a lack of authenticity in the claimed PhD degree.
An affidavit was filed by the Registrar or Controller of Examinations of Bundelkhand University pursuant to the Supreme Court’s January 24, 2025 order. According to the judgment, the affidavit appeared to leave little doubt that the degree claimed by the appointee was “fake and farzi”.
Bundelkhand University also reportedly stated that a letter dated September 15, 2018, which the appointee claimed had been issued by it and sent to Maharshi Dayanand University, was forged. Another certificate relied upon by the appointee was also alleged to have been fabricated.
In view of this material, the Court held that merely dismissing the appeals without issuing further directions would be inappropriate.
While refusing to grant relief to the appellants, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 and directed Maharshi Dayanand University to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the PhD degree.
The Court said the university must determine whether the degree was genuine and whether the appointee had deceived the authorities by projecting himself as a PhD 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 observed.
Maharshi Dayanand University was granted liberty to undertake an inquiry to “sift the grain from the chaff”.
During the inquiry, the appointee must produce the original PhD degree in the presence of officials from Bundelkhand University. Those officials must, in turn, produce the documentary material on the basis of which the affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court.
The appointee must be given an effective opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine the witnesses. The proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice.
The Court clarified that the inquiry should be conducted independently and should not be influenced by the observations contained in its judgment.
The Supreme Court further held that if the inquiry concludes that the PhD degree is forged, Maharshi Dayanand University, Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Bundelkhand University or any other person would be free to provide information to the police for prosecuting the appointee in accordance with law.
The appointment has, therefore, been left undisturbed only for the present and remains subject to the outcome of the inquiry.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
