SC Refuses To Cancel Job Over Suspected Fake PhD, Sends Degree For Fresh Verification

SC Refuses To Cancel Job Over Suspected Fake PhD, Sends Degree For Fresh Verification

The Supreme Court has refused to cancel the appointment of an Assistant Professor despite prima facie material suggesting that the Ph.D. degree used by him may be fake.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that the Ph.D. was not an essential qualification for the post, as the candidate had independently fulfilled the mandatory requirement of qualifying the UGC-NET examination.

However, considering the material casting doubt on the authenticity of the doctoral degree, the Court directed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU) to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter.

The case concerned the appointment of an Assistant Professor of Physical Education at Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Rohtak, affiliated with MDU. The appellants had challenged the appointment of the sixth respondent, questioning the authenticity of his Ph.D. degree, which he claimed was awarded by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court had earlier dismissed the challenge, holding that the appellants lacked the necessary locus as they had themselves been unsuccessful candidates and their names did not appear in the merit list.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision, noting that the sixth respondent had qualified the UGC-NET and therefore possessed the mandatory eligibility for the post.

Examining the applicable UGC regulations, the Bench noted that qualifying UGC-NET, SLET or SET was the mandatory requirement under the relevant 2010 regulations. Candidates holding a Ph.D. awarded in accordance with the applicable UGC regulations were exempted from the NET/SLET/SET requirement.

The Court further observed that under the recruitment rules applicable in Haryana, candidates were required to comply with the UGC and State Government regulations.

The Bench found that a Ph.D. was not an essential qualification for the post. Rather, it was a desirable qualification, while candidates who had not qualified NET/SLET/SET were required to possess a valid Ph.D. Since the sixth respondent had undisputedly cleared UGC-NET, the Court held that he could not be said to lack a mandatory qualification.

The Court, however, expressed serious concern over the authenticity of his Ph.D. degree.

Documents obtained under the Right to Information Act from Bundelkhand University in July 2018 reportedly stated that the candidate had never attended a Ph.D. course at the university and that no Ph.D. programme had been conducted there between 2011 and 2014, the period during which he claimed to have obtained the degree.

An affidavit filed by the Registrar/Controller of Examinations of Bundelkhand University also reportedly described the degree as "fake and farzi". Another document allegedly issued by the university was stated to be forged.

In view of these circumstances, the Supreme Court said it could not "turn a blind eye" to the material placed before it.

Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed MDU to conduct a fresh inquiry to verify whether the Ph.D. degree was genuine.

The Court directed the sixth respondent to produce the original Ph.D. degree before MDU officials in the presence of officials from Bundelkhand University. The university officials would also be required to produce the documentary material on the basis of which the affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court.

The Court further directed that the inquiry be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, giving the sixth respondent an opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine witnesses.

The Supreme Court clarified that its observations in the judgment should not influence the outcome of the inquiry.

Importantly, the Court said that if the inquiry establishes that the Ph.D. degree is forged, MDU, Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Bundelkhand University or any other person would be free to approach the police for prosecution of the candidate for a criminal offence in accordance with law.

The appeals were accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: Annu Kumar & Anr. v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak & Ors.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy