Supreme Court Upholds Assistant Professor's Appointment but Orders University Inquiry Into Allegedly Fake PhD

A Division Bench upholds the appointment while directing Maharshi Dayanand University to verify, under Article 142, a PhD degree Bundelkhand University called “fake and farzi.”

The Supreme Court on 8 September 2026 dismissed a quo warranto challenge against the appointment of an Assistant Professor of Physical Education at Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, but refused to let the matter rest. Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, a Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan directed the university to conduct a fresh inquiry into whether the sixth respondent's PhD degree from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, is genuine. The judgment, reported as 2026 INSC 968, turns on a precise statutory point: the post required UGC-NET qualification, which the sixth respondent held independently, making the allegedly forged PhD degree legally irrelevant to his eligibility—but potentially decisive in the marks he scored over rivals.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

A vacancy for Assistant Professor in Physical Education was advertised on 14 February 2018 by Sat Jinda Kalyana College. Twenty candidates, including the two appellants and the sixth respondent, applied. The sixth respondent emerged as the most qualified and was appointed. The appellants did not figure in the merit list.

Following the appointment, the brother of the first appellant filed a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with Bundelkhand University, which had supposedly awarded the PhD. The university's reply, dated 11 July 2018, stated that the sixth respondent never attended any PhD course there, and that no PhD programme was conducted by the university during 2011–2014, the period in which the degree was claimed to have been awarded.

Armed with this information, the appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a writ of quo warranto, contending that the sixth respondent had usurped a public office on the strength of a forged degree. A Single Judge dismissed the petition on 18 November 2022. A Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal on 28 February 2023, and a subsequent review petition was also dismissed on 21 July 2023. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions.

The High Court's Reasons for Dismissal

The Single Judge found that Maharshi Dayanand University had independently verified the PhD degree and found it in order. The appellants had filed no rejoinder to contest this assertion. The Single Judge further held that the sixth respondent's undisputed UGC-NET qualification independently satisfied the eligibility criteria, regardless of any controversy over the PhD.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on additional grounds. It held that the appellants lacked locus standi because none of them figured among the top three recommended candidates. Placing reliance on A.N. Shastri v. State of Punjab, R.K. Jain v. Union of India, Dr B. Singh v. Union of India, and B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association, the Division Bench held that a writ of quo warranto cannot be used to vindicate personal grievances arising from an unsuccessful selection. The essential ingredients for such a writ were found to be absent.

The Supreme Court's Analysis of the Eligibility Question

The Supreme Court identified the core question as what the minimum qualifications for the post actually were. The advertisement, dated 14 February 2018, preceded the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications, 2018, which came into force on 18 July 2018. The earlier UGC Regulations of 2010 therefore applied.

Under those regulations, qualifying the National Eligibility Test conducted by the UGC—or tests accredited by the UGC such as SLET/SET—was the mandatory requirement. Candidates who held a PhD degree awarded in terms of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 were exempted from the NET/SLET/SET requirement. A PhD was therefore not a mandatory qualification for the post; it was a desirable one, and it attracted additional marks of 10 over and above other heads of assessment.

The Court found that any aspirant who had not qualified NET/SLET/SET was required to hold a PhD. The sixth respondent had, in fact, qualified the UGC-NET. Accordingly, the Court held that he did not lack a mandatory qualification. However, the Court was careful to note that it was “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.” The Court observed that had either of those candidates challenged the appointment, the situation could have been otherwise. Since the appellants were not among the top candidates and brought the challenge purely as unsuccessful aspirants, the High Court was found to be right in dismissing the petition.

Article 142 Direction: Inquiry Into the PhD Degree

While upholding the dismissal of the writ petition and the Division Bench's order, the Supreme Court said it could not ignore what had surfaced during the appellate proceedings. The Court had, by its order dated 24 January 2025, called for an affidavit from the Registrar or Controller of Examinations of Bundelkhand University. That affidavit, once filed, left no ambiguity in the Court's assessment: the degree claimed by the sixth respondent was described in the affidavit as “fake and farzi.” A letter dated 15 September 2018 that the sixth respondent claimed had been issued by Bundelkhand University and forwarded to Maharshi Dayanand University was stated to be a forged document. A certificate annexed to the first respondent's counter affidavit was asserted by Bundelkhand University to be fabricated.

The Court held that if the sixth respondent had indeed secured appointment by deceit at the very inception of the process, mere disposal of the appeals without a positive order would not serve as a protective shield for that appointment.

Invoking Article 142, the Court directed Maharshi Dayanand University to conduct an inquiry. In that inquiry, the sixth respondent shall be required to produce his PhD degree in original in the presence of officials of Bundelkhand University. Those officials, in turn, shall produce documentary evidence on the basis of which the affidavit before the Supreme Court was filed. The sixth respondent shall be given the opportunity to raise an effective defence and to cross-examine witnesses. The inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Consequence if the Degree Is Found Forged

The Court made clear that should the inquiry conclude unfavourably for the sixth respondent—that is, if the PhD degree is found to be forged—it shall be open to Maharshi Dayanand University, Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Bundelkhand University, or anyone else to lay information before the police for criminal prosecution of the sixth respondent in accordance with law.

The Court expressly directed that the inquiry need not be influenced by any observation made in the judgment, which was stated to be necessary only for proper disposal of the appeals.

Order

The civil appeals were disposed of. Maharshi Dayanand University was granted full liberty to conduct the inquiry on the terms set out in the judgment. Connected applications, if any, were closed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.