Back
Supreme Court Upholds Assistant Professor's Appointment Despite Fake PhD Doubts, Orders Inquiry
In a significant ruling that balances procedural fairness with accountability, the upheld the appointment of an Assistant Professor whose Ph.D. degree was alleged to be fake, while ordering a fresh inquiry into the degree's authenticity. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan delivered the judgment on , disposing of appeals arising from a challenge to the appointment of the sixth respondent at , affiliated with .
The Fake PhD Controversy
The appellants, Annu Kumar and another unsuccessful candidate, had moved the seeking a writ of against the appointment of the sixth respondent as Assistant Professor of Physical Education. Their challenge was based on information obtained under the , from , which stated that the sixth respondent had never attended any Ph.D. program during , the period he claimed to have been awarded the degree. A subsequent affidavit from described the degree as "fake and farzi," and a certificate purportedly issued by the university was alleged to be forged.
The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petitions, citing the appellants' lack of as they had not made the merit list. The Division Bench also held that a writ could not be used to redress personal grievances arising from a selection process where the petitioners were unsuccessful.
Legal Loophole: When NET Trumps Doctorate
The Supreme Court examined the applicable Regulations—the regulations, as the advertisement preceded the version. The Court noted that qualifying the -NET, SLET, or SET was the mandatory minimum qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor. Candidates possessing a Ph.D. awarded under the Ph.D. Regulations, , were exempted from this requirement, but a Ph.D. was not an essential qualification for those who had cleared NET.
"The post did not require a Ph.D. as an essential qualification; it was a desirable qualification,"
the Court observed. Since the sixth respondent had undisputedly qualified the
-NET examination, he met the prescribed eligibility criteria regardless of the controversy surrounding his Ph.D. degree. The Court remarked:
"By no stretch of reasoning can it be concluded that he lacked a mandatory qualification; although, we hasten to observe that it is 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 also clarified the scope of a writ, emphasizing that the burden lies on the petitioner to produce that the appointee lacks the requisite qualification. Here, the appellants failed to discharge that burden, as the Ph.D. was not mandatory.
Supreme Court's Balancing Act: Upholding Appointment While Ordering Probe
While declining to interfere with the appointment, the Supreme Court did not ignore the serious allegations against the sixth respondent. Exercising its powers under , the Court directed to conduct a fresh inquiry into the authenticity of the Ph.D. degree, taking into account the disclosures from .
"This is a fit case, where exercise of power conferred by
is warranted. Documentary evidence on record does necessitate an inquiry to be conducted by
against the sixth respondent, once again, for verifying his Ph.D. degree in the light of the disclosures made by
and to reach a satisfaction that the Ph.D. degree is genuine and that the sixth respondent never deceived it by projecting himself as a Ph.D. degree holder,"
the Court held.
The inquiry must be conducted in accordance with , allowing the sixth respondent to present his defense, produce his original degree, and cross-examine witnesses. If the outcome is unfavorable and the degree is found to be forged, the university, college, or may initiate against the respondent.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"By no stretch of reasoning can it be concluded that he lacked a mandatory qualification."
-
"This is a fit case, where exercise of power conferred by is warranted."
-
"If the sixth respondent has indeed secured an appointment by , 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."
-
" is, thus, granted full liberty to undertake an inquiry to sift the grain from the chaff."
-
"Should the outcome of inquiry be unfavourable to the sixth respondent, that is, the Ph.D. degree is found to be a , it shall be open to or Sat Jinda Kalyana College or or anyone else to lay information before the police to prosecute the sixth respondent for a criminal offence, in accordance with law."
Implications and Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment provides a nuanced approach to cases where a candidate's qualification is questioned but not essential for the post. It reaffirms that a writ is not a vehicle for unsuccessful candidates to challenge appointments on personal grounds. At the same time, it underscores the judiciary's commitment to uncovering fraud by directing a thorough inquiry, even when the immediate challenge fails.
The ball is now in 's court to determine the truth behind the contested Ph.D. degree. If the degree is proven fake, the respondent may face not only dismissal but also criminal proceedings. For now, his appointment stands—but under a cloud of investigation that could determine his professional fate.
