Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court

"The jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto cannot be employed as a vehicle for vindication of personal grievances arising out of a selection process in which the appellants are unsuccessful." Supreme Court, in a ruling dated September 08, 2026, held that a writ of quo warranto cannot be maintained by unsuccessful candidates to challenge the appointment of a selected candidate based on personal grievances.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed that such extraordinary jurisdiction is reserved for cases where an appointee lacks the requisite qualifications or suffers from a disability to hold a public office, and cannot be invoked as a substitute for standard service law remedies by those who failed to secure selection on merit.

Dispute Over Assistant Professor Appointment

The case arose from a selection process for the post of Assistant Professor of Physical Education at Sat Jinda Kalyana College, Haryana. The appellants, who were unsuccessful in the selection, challenged the appointment of the sixth respondent, alleging that the latter had secured the position using a forged Ph.D. degree from Bundelkhand University. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had previously dismissed their writ petition and subsequent intra-court appeal on the grounds of lack of locus standi and the non-maintainability of a quo warranto petition.

Issues Concerning Essential Qualifications

The primary question before the court was whether the appellants could invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court to assail a public appointment upon alleging professional misconduct by the selectee. The court also examined whether the sixth respondent possessed the mandatory qualifications prescribed for the post under the relevant UGC regulations and state service rules at the time of the 2018 advertisement.

Quo Warranto Requires Unimpeachable Evidence

The Supreme Court reiterated that to succeed in a proceeding for a writ of quo warranto, the petitioner must establish that an appointee lacks the essential qualifications or suffers from a disqualification to hold public office. The bench noted that the burden of proof rests heavily on the writ petitioner to produce unimpeachable evidence. Only upon the production of such evidence does the onus shift to the appointee or the authority to rebut the allegations of illegality or lack of qualifications.

Essential vs Desirable Qualifications

Upon examining the recruitment criteria, the court found that a Ph.D. degree was not a mandatory requirement for the post but merely a desirable one. The core eligibility criteria mandated either the possession of a Ph.D. or qualification in the UGC-NET examination. As the sixth respondent had qualified the UGC-NET, the court determined that he fulfilled the eligibility requirements regardless of the controversy surrounding his Ph.D. status.

"The post of Assistant Professor on which the sixth respondent aspired for appointment did not require, as an essential qualification, a Ph. D. degree; in fact, it was a desirable qualification."

"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."

Power Under Article 142 Invoked

Despite upholding the High Court’s refusal to interfere with the appointment, the Supreme Court took serious note of the documentary evidence surfacing during appellate proceedings. The court observed that affidavits from Bundelkhand University suggested the Ph.D. degree in question was "fake and farzi." Consequently, the court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct a fresh inquiry by the Maharshi Dayanand University.

Mandate for Fair Inquiry

The University has been granted full liberty to conduct an inquiry adhering to the principles of natural justice. The sixth respondent must be provided an opportunity to produce his original degree and cross-examine witnesses. Should the inquiry conclude that the degree is indeed a forged document, the court clarified that it shall be open for the concerned university or college to initiate criminal prosecution against the sixth respondent.

Date of Decision: 08 September 2026