Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 08 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Annu Kumar & Anr.; Respondents – Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Ors., including Sat Jinda Kalyana College and the sixth respondent (appointed Assistant Professor, Physical Education).
  • Procedural History:
  • Petition under Article 226 (Civil W.P. No. 34925/2019) dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 18 Nov 2022.
  • Intra‑court appeal (High Court 3 L.P.A. No. 143/2023 (OM)) dismissed on 28 Feb 2023.
  • Review petition and condonation of delay application dismissed on 21 July 2023 (RA‑LP‑17‑2023; CM‑1967‑LPA‑2023).
  • The above orders were challenged via Special Leave Petitions, giving rise to the present Supreme Court appeals.
  • Background Facts:
  • Vacancy for Assistant Professor of Physical Education advertised on 14 Feb 2018 by Sat Jinda Kalyana College, affiliated to MD University.
  • Seventeen candidates applied; the sixth respondent emerged as the most‑qualified and was appointed.
  • A query was raised (via RTI) about the authenticity of the sixth respondent’s Ph.D. claimed to be awarded by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.
  • Bundelkhand University, in its response dated 11 July 2018, confirmed that no Ph.D. programme was conducted during 2011‑2014, the period claimed by the respondent.
  • Documents on record include a letter dated 24 July 2018 from Bundelkhand University stating the degree was not awarded, an affidavit from the Registrar/Controller of Examinations, and a forged letter dated 15 Sept 2018 allegedly issued by Bundelkhand University.
  • Legal Issues:

1. Whether the appointment was made on the basis of a forged Ph.D. and thus a writ of quo warranto was appropriate.

2. Whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the appointment.

3. What are the minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education under the applicable regulations.

  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The Single Judge held that MD University’s counter‑affidavit asserted the degree was “in order” and that the sixth respondent satisfied eligibility by qualifying the UGC‑NET examination, which was undisputed.
  • No rejoinder was filed by the appellants; therefore, the judge found no reason to disbelieve the university’s stance.
  • The Division Bench dismissed the intra‑court appeal on the ground of lack of locus standi, noting the appellants were not among the top three candidates on the merit list.
  • The Bench reiterated that a writ of quo warranto cannot be used to redress personal grievances of unsuccessful candidates.
  • The Court examined the statutory qualifications: the advertisement (14 Feb 2018) preceded the UGC Regulations 2018, so the 2010 regulations applied, which required either a Ph.D. (per UGC Ph.D. Regulations 2009) or qualification in the UGC‑NET/SLET/SET.
  • Since the sixth respondent had qualified the UGC‑NET, he met the mandatory qualification; a Ph.D. was only a desirable add‑on.
  • The Court therefore concluded that the writ petition and appeal lacked merit.
  • Directions:
  • While upholding the lower courts’ orders, the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 to direct MD University to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the sixth respondent’s Ph.D. degree.
  • The inquiry must be conducted in accordance with natural justice, with the sixth respondent required to produce the original Ph.D. certificate before officials of Bundelkhand University.
  • Bundelkhand University officials must produce documentary evidence on which their affidavit before the Court was based.
  • The sixth respondent will be given an opportunity to raise a defence and to cross‑examine witnesses.
  • If the inquiry finds the Ph.D. to be forged, MD University, Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Bundelkhand University or any other aggrieved party may lodge an information before the police for criminal prosecution.
  • The civil appeals are disposed of on these terms; any connected applications stand closed; parties bear their own costs.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ Special Leave Petitions, upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition and intra‑court appeal, and ordered MD University to re‑investigate the sixth respondent’s Ph.D. degree, with possible criminal action if forgery is established.

Topics: Quo Warranto, Higher‑Education Recruitment, Judicial Review