![No Quo Warranto Where Appointee Holds Mandatory UGC-NET, Ph.D. Probe Ordered: Supreme Court in Annu Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University [2026 INSC 968]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: A writ of quo warranto cannot unseat an Assistant Professor who held the mandatory UGC-NET qualification, even if his Ph.D. degree appears to be fake, because the Ph.D. was only a desirable qualification for the post. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the quo warranto petition, but used Article 142 to let Maharshi Dayanand University hold a fresh inquiry into the Ph.D. degree and, if it is found forged, to have the appointee prosecuted.
In Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Ors. (2026 INSC 968), the Supreme Court held that a writ of quo warranto did not lie against the appointment of an Assistant Professor of Physical Education who had qualified the UGC-NET, since a Ph.D. degree was not an essential qualification for the post under the 2010 UGC regulations that applied to the February 2018 advertisement (paras 11–12, 15–17). A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, however, invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant Maharshi Dayanand University liberty to inquire afresh into the appointee's Ph.D. degree, which Bundelkhand University has called "fake and farzi", and allowed criminal prosecution if the degree is found forged (paras 6, 18–20).
Status: Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench judgment dated 28.02.2023 and review order dated 21.07.2023 upheld; appointment not disturbed for the present; inquiry into the Ph.D. degree permitted; appeals disposed of (paras 2, 17–21).
Headnote: Quo Warranto and a Questionable Ph.D. Degree
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of quo warranto – Article 142 – Appointment of Assistant Professor of Physical Education – Essential and desirable qualifications – UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018 – UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 – UGC-NET – Allegedly fake Ph.D. degree – Burden of proof – Inquiry by University – Liberty to prosecute.
Held: (i) As the advertisement of 14.02.2018 preceded the UGC Regulations, 2018 (in force from 18.07.2018), the earlier 2010 regulations applied; under both, qualifying NET/SLET/SET was the mandatory qualification, with Ph.D. holders under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations exempted (para 11).
(ii) The advertisement adopted the qualifications prescribed by the Government of Haryana and Maharshi Dayanand University, which in turn followed UGC rules, so the minimum qualification for the appointee was the UGC-NET (para 12).
(iii) A petitioner seeking quo warranto, who may even be a stranger, must prove by unimpeachable evidence that the appointee lacked the requisite qualification or suffered a disqualification and so usurped a public office; only then does the onus shift to the appointer and appointee (para 14).
(iv) A Ph.D. was only a desirable qualification carrying 10 additional marks; since the appointee had qualified the UGC-NET, he did not lack any mandatory qualification, though he may have gained an edge over the second and third candidates through the questionable degree (para 15).
(v) The High Court was right in its appreciation of the legal position, and the writ petition and intra-court appeal did not merit interference (paras 16–17).
(vi) Under Article 142, the University may inquire afresh into the Ph.D. degree, following natural justice, and if the degree is found forged, any person may lay information before the police for prosecution (paras 18–20).
(paras 11–20)
Case Details: Annu Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University (2026 INSC 968)
Final Outcome: Appeals disposed of; High Court's judgment upheld and appointment not disturbed for the present; Maharshi Dayanand University granted liberty to hold an inquiry into the sixth respondent's Ph.D. degree, with liberty to prosecute if it is found forged; parties to bear their own costs.
Case: Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 968
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24737–24739 of 2023)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 8 September 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta (author) and Justice Manmohan
Relevant Acts & Sections: Constitution of India – Articles 142 and 226; UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff, 2010 and 2018; UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009; Right to Information Act, 2005
Impugned Orders: Punjab and Haryana High Court – Division Bench judgment dated 28.02.2023 in L.P.A. No. 143/2023 and order dated 21.07.2023 dismissing the review petition and the application for condonation of delay; Single Judge's judgment dated 18.11.2022 in Civil W.P. No. 34925/2019 (para 2)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The 2010 UGC regulations, not the 2018 regulations, governed the February 2018 advertisement, and both made NET/SLET/SET the mandatory qualification (para 11).
- For the post of Assistant Professor, a Ph.D. was only a desirable qualification earning 10 extra marks; the essential qualification was the UGC-NET, which the appointee had cleared (paras 12, 15).
- Quo warranto requires the petitioner to prove by unimpeachable evidence that the appointee lacked the requisite qualification and usurped a public office (para 14).
- The High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition and the intra-court appeal (paras 16–17).
- Even so, the Court could not turn a blind eye to documents indicating a fake Ph.D., and under Article 142 permitted a fresh inquiry by the University (para 18).
- If the degree is found forged, the University, the College, Bundelkhand University or anyone else may lay information before the police for prosecution (para 20).
Brief Facts of the Case
On 14.02.2018, Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, advertised a vacancy for Assistant Professor of Physical Education. The appellants, the sixth respondent and 17 others applied; the sixth respondent emerged as the most qualified candidate and was appointed, while the appellants did not figure in the merit list (para 4).
Through an RTI query made by the brother of the first appellant, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, stated on 11.07.2018 that the sixth respondent never attended any Ph.D. course there, as no Ph.D. programme was conducted during 2011–2014, when he claimed to have obtained the degree (para 5).
The appellants sought a writ of quo warranto before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Single Judge dismissed the petition on 18.11.2022, relying on the University's stand that the RTI document was unauthenticated, that an independent verification found the degree in order, and that the sixth respondent was in any case eligible through the UGC-NET (para 8).
The Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal on 28.02.2023, holding that the appellants, who were not among the top three candidates, lacked locus standi and that quo warranto could not be used to vindicate personal grievances; the review petition was dismissed on 21.07.2023 (paras 2, 9).
Before the Supreme Court, an affidavit called from Bundelkhand University indicated that the degree was "fake and farzi", and that a letter dated 15.09.2018 and a certificate relied on by the sixth respondent were forged or fabricated (para 6).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- What minimum qualifications an aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education was required to possess under the February 2018 advertisement (paras 10–12).
- Whether a case for a writ of quo warranto was made out against the sixth respondent's appointment (paras 13–17).
- Whether, despite upholding the High Court, the Court should act on the material indicating a forged Ph.D. degree (paras 18–20).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Applicable UGC regulations (para 11): Relying on the UGC's counter affidavit, the Court held that since the advertisement preceded the UGC Regulations, 2018, the 2010 regulations applied. Under both, qualifying NET/SLET/SET was mandatory, and Ph.D. holders under the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations were exempt from it.
Qualification under the advertisement (para 12): The advertisement adopted the criteria of the Government of Haryana and the University, which in turn required UGC/State rules to be followed. The minimum qualification for the sixth respondent was therefore the UGC-NET.
Requirements of quo warranto (para 14): The petitioner must establish, by producing unimpeachable evidence, that the appointee lacked the requisite qualification or suffered a disqualification and thereby usurped a public office. If such evidence is produced, the onus shifts to the appointer and the appointee.
Ph.D. only desirable (paras 15–17): The Ph.D. was a desirable qualification earning 10 extra marks; it was required only of those without NET/SLET/SET. As the sixth respondent had qualified the UGC-NET, he did not lack a mandatory qualification. The Court observed that he may have "stole a march" over the second and third candidates through the questionable degree, and that the situation could have been different had they challenged the appointment. The High Court's view was upheld.
Article 142 inquiry (paras 18–19): The Court held that it could not turn a blind eye to what surfaced in the appeals. Maharshi Dayanand University was given full liberty to inquire into the Ph.D. degree, with the sixth respondent producing the original degree before Bundelkhand University officials, who must produce the documents behind their affidavit. The sixth respondent will have the right to defend and to cross-examine witnesses.
Liberty to prosecute (para 20): If the inquiry finds the degree forged, the University, the College, Bundelkhand University or anyone else may report the matter to the police for prosecution in accordance with law.
Final Outcome and Directions
- The High Court's judgment and order are upheld, and the appointment of the sixth respondent is not disturbed for the present (paras 17–18).
- Maharshi Dayanand University may hold an inquiry, in accordance with natural justice, to verify the sixth respondent's Ph.D. degree in light of Bundelkhand University's disclosures (paras 18–19).
- The sixth respondent must produce the original Ph.D. degree before officials of Bundelkhand University, who must produce the documents on which their affidavit was based (para 19).
- The inquiry is not to be influenced by the observations in the judgment (para 19).
- If the degree is found forged, any person may lay information before the police for prosecution (para 20).
- Appeals disposed of; connected applications closed; parties to bear their own costs (paras 21–23).
Legal Principle Laid Down
A writ of quo warranto lies only where the appointee lacks an essential qualification or suffers a disqualification and has thus usurped a public office, and the petitioner must prove this by unimpeachable evidence. Where a candidate holds the mandatory qualification (here, the UGC-NET), doubts over a merely desirable qualification such as a Ph.D. do not justify quo warranto; but the Supreme Court may, under Article 142, permit the employer to inquire into an allegedly fake degree and allow criminal proceedings if forgery is established.
Precedents Relied Upon
- A.N. Shastri v. State of Punjab, (1998) Supp SCC 127 – Relied upon by the High Court's Division Bench on the scope of quo warranto. Discussed at para 9.
- R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119 – Relied upon by the Division Bench on the scope of quo warranto. Discussed at para 9.
- Dr B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363 – Relied upon by the Division Bench on the scope of quo warranto. Discussed at para 9.
- B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731 – Relied upon by the Division Bench on the scope of quo warranto. Discussed at para 9.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 6: "The contents of such affidavit would seemingly leave none in doubt that the degree claimed by the fourth respondent is “fake and farzi”."
Para 14: "While questioning an appointment on a public office on the ground of lack of authority of the appointee to occupy the same, the burden of proof has to be discharged by the writ petitioner by producing unimpeachable evidence in support of his assertion."
Para 15: "Ergo, 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."
Para 18: "This is a fit case, where exercise of power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution is warranted."
Para 18: "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."
Para 19: "Maharshi Dayanand University is, thus, granted full liberty to undertake an inquiry to sift the grain from the chaff."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For unsuccessful candidates: Quo warranto will not lie merely because the appointee's desirable qualification is doubtful, if the appointee holds the mandatory qualification (paras 14–15).
- For universities and colleges: Even after a quo warranto petition fails, the employer may be permitted to inquire afresh into an allegedly fake degree, and appointments obtained by deceit are not protected (paras 18–19).
- For appointees with questioned degrees: They must produce original degrees in the inquiry and face prosecution if forgery is proved, though they are entitled to natural justice and cross-examination (paras 19–20).
- For recruitment disputes: Candidates placed just below the appointee in the merit list may have a stronger case where extra marks for a questionable degree affected the ranking (para 15).
- For practitioners: Recruitment is governed by the UGC regulations in force on the date of the advertisement (para 11).
FAQs on Quo Warranto and Fake Ph.D. Degrees
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Annu Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University?
It upheld the High Court's refusal to issue a writ of quo warranto against the Assistant Professor's appointment, but allowed the University to inquire into his allegedly fake Ph.D. degree and permitted prosecution if forgery is found (paras 17–20).
2. Why was quo warranto refused despite the doubtful Ph.D.?
Because the Ph.D. was only a desirable qualification; the mandatory qualification was the UGC-NET, which the appointee had cleared (paras 12, 15).
3. Which UGC regulations applied to the 2018 recruitment?
The 2010 regulations, since the advertisement of 14.02.2018 preceded the UGC Regulations, 2018, which came into force on 18.07.2018 (para 11).
4. What must a person prove to obtain a writ of quo warranto?
That the appointee lacked the requisite qualification or suffered a disqualification and so usurped a public office, proved by unimpeachable evidence; the onus then shifts to the appointer and appointee (para 14).
5. What happens if the Ph.D. degree is found to be forged?
Maharshi Dayanand University, the College, Bundelkhand University or anyone else may lay information before the police to prosecute the appointee for a criminal offence (para 20).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 968, Annu Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University, writ of quo warranto, fake Ph.D. degree, Assistant Professor Physical Education, UGC-NET mandatory qualification, UGC Regulations 2010, UGC Regulations 2018, desirable qualification, Article 142, Bundelkhand University, Justice Dipankar Datta, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment, service law
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Annu Kumar v. Maharshi Dayanand University
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).