Shivaji University Had No Authority to Reject a Ph.D Identical to Its Own, Rules Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench

The Bombay High Court held that equivalence proceedings cannot be initiated when two universities confer the identical Ph.D degree, and quashed Shivaji University's refusal to approve a professor's appointment at Annasaheb Dange College of Engineering.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court sitting at Kolhapur has quashed a series of resolutions passed by Shivaji University, Kolhapur, that refused to recognise a Ph.D degree awarded by the Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (JJTU) — effectively blocking a candidate's appointment as Professor in Computer Science and Engineering. Justice Sandesh D. Patil, who authored the judgment, and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi held on 7 August 2026 that since both universities confer the same degree — Ph.D — the question of equivalence simply does not arise. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Anand Yadav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2021) 12 SCC 390], the Bench held that Shivaji University committed an error of law, and directed it to approve the petitioner's selection forthwith.

How the Dispute Reached the Kolhapur Bench

The petitioner, Dr. Santaji Krishna Shinde, applied for the post of Professor at Annasaheb Dange College of Engineering, Astha, Walva, District Sangli, after an advertisement was issued in January 2016. He held a Ph.D awarded by JJTU on 5 February 2016. He appeared for the interview on 21 February 2016 and was selected.

Respondent No. 2 — the Director, Board of College and University Development, Shivaji University — refused to grant approval to his selection. The Academic Council of Shivaji University had earlier, by a resolution dated 16 May 2015, confirmed the resolution of the Standing Equivalence Committee dated 30 March 2015, which held that a degree conferred by the Rajasthan university was not equivalent to a degree conferred by Shivaji University. A letter dated 13 April 2015 from the Director of Respondent No. 2 communicated this rejection. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7120 of 2016 before this Court on 6 May 2016.

During the pendency of the petition, a Division Bench comprising S. C. Dharmadhikari and M. S. Karnik, JJ. passed an order dated 5 March 2019 directing the petitioner to appear before the Sub-Committee on Equivalence of Shivaji University, while expressly preserving his objection to the university's jurisdiction. The Sub-Committee rejected the petitioner's proposal. The Dean Committee recommended rejection. The Academic Council then resolved, on 24 May 2019, to accept those recommendations. The petitioner amended his petition to challenge those additional resolutions as well.

The Legal Question

The core question the Bench framed was whether Shivaji University had the jurisdiction at all to conclude that the Ph.D awarded by JJTU was not equivalent to the Ph.D conferred by Shivaji University, when both are the same degree.

Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that equivalence is a concept that operates between different degrees — for instance, between an M.Ed and an M.A. (Education). When both universities confer a Ph.D, there are no two different degrees to compare, and the equivalence exercise is misconceived. He further argued that Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 vests the right to confer degrees exclusively in recognised universities, and no other university has the authority to impugn a degree conferred by a UGC-recognised institution. He relied on Anand Yadav (supra) for the proposition that if two degrees are identical, there is no question of equivalence.

He also referred to a judgment dated 26 July 2017 of this Court in Dr. Sanjay Tejbahadur Singh v. The Registrar, Savitribai Phule Pune University & Ors., Writ Petition No. 6978 of 2015 (Coram: B. R. Gavai and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.), which had set aside Savitribai Phule University's attempt to question a Ph.D from the very same JJTU. He also drew attention to a subsequent Division Bench judgment in Sanjivani Shripati Kamble v. State of Maharashtra (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9692) (Coram: B. R. Gavai and Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ.), which had expressed a contrary view and held that the earlier judgment in Dr. Sanjay Tejbahadur Singh did not lay down the correct proposition of law.

The Senior Counsel argued that the Division Bench in Sanjivani Shripati Kamble ought not to have departed from Dr. Sanjay Tejbahadur Singh without referring the matter to a larger Bench. He relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur [(1989) 1 SCC 101] on the doctrines of per incuriam and sub silentio to argue that the observations in Sanjivani Shripati Kamble could not bind this Bench.

Counsel for Shivaji University, Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar, countered that a Ph.D is inherently subjective and involves selection of topic, a guide, open interview, and viva defence — unlike conventional degrees based on marks. He argued that equivalence for employment purposes falls squarely within the academic autonomy of the university under Section 2(5) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act. He pointed to Section 6(4) of the Maharashtra Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2023, and argued that JJTU does not appear in that Act's schedule. He further relied on a UGC report dated 29 April 2011 which recommended against JJTU starting any course, and noted that the petitioner had registered with JJTU only five days before that report was published. He pointed out that dates on which the petitioner appeared for the entrance examination fell on Sundays, and that the admission notice of JJTU dated 1 April 2011 did not list Computer Engineering as an available branch for Ph.D pursuit. He also noted that JJTU had not responded to a letter from the Dean Committee dated 22 April 2019.

Counsel for the University Grants Commission, Mr. Rui Adelino Rodrigues, submitted that the UGC issued a public notice on 19 July 2016 clarifying that the UGC does not determine equivalence of degrees; equivalence in higher education is decided by the concerned university, and in employment matters by the employing organisation.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Bench began by setting aside the earlier Division Bench judgment in Sanjivani Shripati Kamble as a guide for the present case. The Court noted that the Division Bench in that case had specifically stated that it would “not be necessary for us to go into the question” of equivalence because the petitioner therein had independently cleared the SET examination on 12 June 2014. The equivalence issue was therefore not decided on its merits.

The Bench then turned to Anand Yadav [(2021) 12 SCC 390]. Paragraph 37 of that judgment, quoted in full by the Bench, states clearly that “if the two degrees are identical, there is no question of equivalence.” Equivalence, the Supreme Court explained, only arises when there are two different degrees and what is to be determined is whether, for certain purposes, they can be treated as equivalent.

Applying that test, the Bench found the position straightforward: both JJTU and Shivaji University confer a Ph.D. The degrees are identical in name. There were therefore no two different degrees between which an equivalence exercise could legitimately be conducted. The Sub-Committee on Equivalence, the Dean Committee, and the Academic Council had all gone through a process that had no legal foundation to begin with.

The Bench also addressed the university's argument that the decision was a policy matter entitled to judicial deference. Relying on Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651], the Court restated the grounds of judicial review — illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. It held that Shivaji University had committed a clear error of law: the university had no authority to examine equivalence when the degree in question was identical to its own. The Court was therefore well within the scope of judicial review in interfering.

On Section 22 of the UGC Act, the Bench held that the right to confer degrees vests exclusively in recognised universities, and that provision carries with it a necessary corollary: no university has the right to question a degree conferred by another UGC-recognised institution. Any other reading, the Court said, would produce “anarchy and chaos in the educational fabric of this nation.”

The Bench expressly declined to go into the current status of JJTU or its competence to enrol students after 2025. It confined its consideration to the university's status at the time the advertisement was issued in January 2016.

As for the argument that JJTU had not replied to the Dean Committee's letter of 22 April 2019, the Court held that silence by JJTU could not itself be a ground to question the identical degree it had already granted. The Court was similarly unpersuaded by the procedural anomalies raised by Shivaji University — including the Sunday examination dates — observing that these did not alter the fundamental legal position on equivalence.

The Bench also noted a specific procedural irregularity in the 9 May 2019 process: Dr. P. D. Raut was recorded as being present simultaneously at two separate committee meetings held on the same date at the same time — the Dean Committee meeting and the Equivalence Committee meeting. The Bench flagged this as casting doubt on the authenticity of both meetings, though the primary basis for quashing remained the want of jurisdiction to conduct any equivalence inquiry in the first place.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions by its order pronounced on 7 August 2026:

The resolution of the Academic Council dated 16 May 2015 confirming the resolution of the Standing Equivalence Committee dated 30 March 2015 was quashed and set aside. The letter dated 13 April 2015 issued by Respondent No. 2 was quashed and set aside. The resolution of the Academic Council dated 24 May 2019, the resolution of the Dean Committee dated 9 May 2019, and the resolution of the Sub-Committee on Equivalence dated 9 May 2019 were all quashed and set aside.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to give approval to the petitioner's selection to the post of Professor in Computer Science and Engineering forthwith.

The Bench clarified that since the qualification issue had been pending before the Court and approval would only now be sanctioned, the petitioner's entitlement to salary and other benefits would run from the date of his actual appointment, not from any earlier date.

Rule was made absolute.