Supreme Court of India
PRIYANKA KUMARI AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 167
- Decided
- 18 February 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- RAJESH BINDAL
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the appellants' degrees are protected despite the ultra vires declaration of the 2002 Act, rendering their termination illegal and entitling them to reinstatement without back wages.
Summary
The appellants were appointed as librarians in Bihar based on a B.Lib degree from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, which was established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. The Act was later declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in 2005, leading the State of Bihar to terminate the appellants' services on the ground that their degree was invalid. The appellants contended that the Supreme Court's protective order for students still studying should also extend to those who had already graduated. The Court examined the scope of the protective order, the doctrine of prospective overruling, and the applicability of the ultra vires declaration to past graduates. It held that the appellants were not at fault and that the termination was illegal, ordering their reinstatement with continuity but denying back wages. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court's order set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether termination of service of employees on the basis of a degree obtained from a university established under an act later declared ultra vires is lawful.
- Whether the protective relief granted in Prof. Yashpal's case to students still studying extends to graduates who had already passed out.
- Whether the principle of prospective overruling applies to shield the appellants' qualifications.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to reinstatement and/or back wages.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration The appellants herein were dismissed from the post of librarian on which they were appointed by the State of Bihar. It was on account of the fact that the degree obtained by them from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, was declared invalid as Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 under which the University was established, was later on declared to be ultra vires. Headnotes† Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 – The University in question (mentioned at serial no.23) was granted recognition by the State of
Subjects
EducationDegreeProtection of studentsBenefits of degreeService LawTerminationUniversityUnrecognised UniversityReinstatementBack wages
Judgment
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 266 : 2026 INSC 167
Priyanka Kumari and Ors.
v.
The State of Bihar and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026)
18 February 2026
[Rajesh Bindal* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellants herein were dismissed from the post of librarian
on which they were appointed by the State of Bihar. It was on
account of the fact that the degree obtained by them from the
University of Technology and Science, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, was
declared invalid as the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya
Act, 2002 under which the University was established, was later
on declared to be ultra vires.
Headnotes†
Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 – The
University in question (mentioned at serial no.23) was granted
recognition by the State of Chhattisgarh under the provisions
of the 2002 Act – After getting admission in the aforesaid
University, the appellants passed out with a degree of Bachelor
of Library Science (B.Lib) in the year 2004 – The aforesaid
Act was declared to be ultra vires by this Court vide order
dated 11.02.2005 – Thereafter, the State of Bihar issued an
advertisement for recruitment to the post of librarians and
appellants were selected – PIL was filed raising an issue that
certain persons have been appointed as librarians on the basis
of qualification obtained by pursuing the courses from the
University, which was not a recognized institution – PIL was
dismissed – However, the State took action and the services
of the appellants were terminated – Correctness:
Held: What is evident from the facts of the case is that the University
from which the appellants had studied had been set up under the
2002 Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature – The
aforesaid Act was declared to be ultra vires by this Court vide
order dated 11.02.2005 – Till such time, the students had been
* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 267
Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
studying and passing out – At the time of declaration of the said
Act to be ultra vires, this Court had protected the students who
were still studying – They were directed to be transferred to
alternative institutions recognized by the State – Considering the
aforesaid fact and also that in the factual situation in hand, the
appellants cannot be said to be at fault as they had studied in the
University, which has been set up under the 2002 Act enacted
by the State Legislature – Hence, they should not be deprived of
the benefits of the degree obtained by them while studying in the
University – It is not the case of the State that the University in
which the appellants studied was bogus or no study was actually
imparted – Accordingly, the orders vide which the services of the
appellants were terminated is declared as illegal – Appellants are
directed to be reinstated back in service, with continuity – However,
they are not entitled to any back wages. [Paras 16-18]
Case Law Cited
Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. [2005] 2
SCR 23 : (2005) 5 SCC 420; Anil Bhimraj Purane v. The Union of
India and Others, Writ Petition No. 9039/2012; Goan Real Estate
and Construction Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2010] 3
SCR 1160 – referred to.
List of Acts
Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002.
List of Keywords
Education; Degree; Protection of students; Benefits of degree;
Service Law; Termination; University; Unrecognised University;
Reinstatement; Back wages.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 797
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 671 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 798 and 799 of 2026
268 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Navniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv., Rizwan Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmed,
Abhishek Kumar, Shivam Yadav, Mohd Tauheed, Gopal Jha, Jitesh
Kumar, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Ms. Shireesha Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Pranjal Sharma, Samir Ali Khan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 are aggrieved against
the judgment dated 11.04.2019, passed by the High Court1 in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 671 of 2018. The High Court dismissed the appeal
against the order of the Single Judge dated 22.02.2018 passed in
Civil Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2016, thereby affirming the termination
of services of the petitioners therein.
1.1 The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 798 and 799 of 2026 are
before this Court, aggrieved against the dismissal of Letters
Patent Appeal No. 567 of 2018 by the High Court vide order
dated 01.11.2022. The High Court dismissed the aforesaid
LPA relying upon earlier order dated 11.04.2019 passed in LPA
No. 671 of 2018, since both the matters involved same issue.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants approached the High Court
challenging their dismissal from the post of librarian on which they
were appointed by the State of Bihar. It was on account of the fact
that the degree obtained by them from the University of Technology
and Science, Raipur, Chhattisgarh,2 was declared invalid as the
Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 20023 under which the
University was established, was later on declared to be ultra vires.
1 High Court of Judicature at Patna
2 For short “the University”
3 For short “the 2002 Act”
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 269
Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
3. Briefly, the facts available on record are that the 2002 Act was enacted
by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature providing for establishment of
self-financing universities to promote higher education in the State.
The University in question was granted recognition vide order dated
04.02.2002 by the State of Chhattisgarh under the provisions of the
2002 Act. On 28.05.2004, a public notice was issued enlisting the
names of the universities that have been established under the 2002
Act, wherein the name of the University in question is mentioned
at Serial No. 23. After getting admission in the aforesaid University,
the appellants passed out with a degree of Bachelor of Library
Science (B.Lib) in the year 2004. Even the Central Government vide
communication dated 26.01.2004 issued by the Ministry of Human
Resources Development, Government of India, had recognized the
courses conducted by the University.
4. A Writ Petition was filed in this Court by Professor Yash Pal, former
Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC), challenging
the competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact
the 2002 Act. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2005,4 the 2002 Act was
declared to be ultra vires, by this Court.
4.1 In 2009, the State of Bihar issued an advertisement for
recruitment to the post of librarians. On 22.05.2010, the
appellants were selected as librarians and were working
satisfactorily on the post. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL)5 was
filed before the High Court raising an issue that certain persons
have been appointed as librarians on the basis of qualification
obtained by pursuing the courses from the University, which
was not a recognized institution. The writ petition was dismissed
on 15.05.2014 as it lacked foundational facts. However, the
State had taken action and as a result thereof, the services of
the appellants were terminated vide order dated 22.08.2015.
Challenging the same, writ petition6 was filed before the High
Court, which was dismissed on 22.08.2018. The order passed
4 Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 420
5 Writ Petition No. CWJC No. 19959/2010
6 CWJC No. 6827/2016
270 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by the Single Judge was upheld in intra-court appeal7 vide order
dated 11.04.2019. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present
appeal has been filed.
5. Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants
submitted that after the 2002 Act was enacted, the University was
established. It was duly recognized and even the education being
imparted by it, was recognized by the Central Government. The
appellants passed out in the year 2004. Writ Petition was filed before
this Court, challenging legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh
State Legislature to enact the 2002 Act. This Court vide judgment
dated 11.02.2005 had struck down the 2002 Act. It is mentioned in
the aforesaid judgment that the students who are studying in the
University will have to be shifted to other recognized universities in
the State, so that their career does not suffer. This clearly makes out
a case that this Court was conscious of the fact that the management
which had set up the University was not at fault, as it was established
under the 2002 Act enacted by the State, which was later struck
down by this Court. The students who were studying should not
suffer. Taking analogy therefrom, even the students who had passed
out earlier, even their degrees and certificates have to be protected.
5.1 Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Bombay High
Court in Anil Bhimraj Purane Versus The Uniion of India
and Others,8 where identical issue was involved pertaining
to the University in question and the relief was granted to the
petitioner therein. He further referred to the judgment of this
Court in Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors.,9 in support of the argument that the
earlier judgment in Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra) has
to be read on the principle of prospective overruling. Meaning
thereby, the actions taken prior to the judgment of this Court
declaring the 2002 Act to be ultra vires, have to be protected.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
once the 2002 Act has been struck down, any certificates / diplomas
7 LPA No. 671/2018
8 Writ Petition No. 9039/2012
9 [2010] 3 SCR 1160
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 271
Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
or degrees awarded by the University will become unrecognized.
On the declaration of the 2002 Act to be ultra vires on account of
legislative incompetence, no relief can be granted to any of the
students even if they had earlier passed out from the University.
Principles of prospective overruling cannot be applied in the case
in hand. When the appellants made applications for selection to the
post of librarians in the year 2010, they very well knew about the
fact that their degrees had been declared to be invalid as the 2002
Act under which the University was established and in which they
studied, had been declared to be ultra vires. It is clearly evident
from the judgment in Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra), that
protection was granted only to the student, who were still studying
in the University and not to those who had already passed out.
There is no merit in the present appeal. The same deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.
8. The undisputed facts of the case in hand can be summed up
briefly. The State of Chhattisgarh enacted Chattisgarh Niji Kshetra
Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. The University of Technology and Science,
Raipur, was established under the aforesaid Act. It is also claimed
that a public notice was issued on 28.05.2014 by the Chhattisgarh
Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Regulatory Commission, Government
of Chattisgarh, Education Department, detailing the list of universities
established under the 2002 Act and the name of the University finds
mention therein. The appellants passed out in the year 2004 from
the University after obtaining Bachelor’s degree in Library Sciences
(B.Lib). It is also evident from a letter dated 26.01.2004, from the
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development that
the Degrees/ Diplomas/ Certificates including pre-University Courses
(equivalent to 10+2) awarded by the University were recognized for
higher studies and employment.
9. Professor Yash Pal, former Chairman of UGC filed a writ petition
before this Court on 04.12.2003 challenging the validity of the 2002
Act on the ground of legislative incompetence of the Chhattisgarh
State. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2005, Sections 5 and 6 of the
2002 Act were declared ultra vires. As a consequence, all such
universities ceased to exist.
272 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. In 2009, an advertisement was issued by the State of Bihar for
selection to the post of librarians. The appellants were selected
and appointed on 22.05.2010. A PIL was filed before the High
Court raising an issue that some persons have been appointed as
librarians on the basis of certificates received from an institution,
which was not recognized. As the writ petition lacked foundational
facts to show that the University was bogus, the same was dismissed
on 15.05.2014. It was claimed by the counsel for the appellant that
though the writ petition was dismissed but the State took action
otherwise. The services of the appellants were terminated vide order
dated 22.08.2015 in the light of directions issued by Joint Secretary,
Education Department, Bihar vide letter dated 16.07.2015.
11. While dealing with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for
the parties, it would be relevant to refer to the final findings recorded
by this Court in the Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra) in paragraphs
64 and 65 thereof. The same are extracted below:
“64. As a consequence of the discussion made and the
findings recorded that the provisions of Sections 5 and
6 of the Act are ultra vires and the gazette notifications
notifying the universities are liable to be quashed, all such
universities shall cease to exist. Shri Amarendera Sharan,
learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that
UGC had conducted an inquiry and it was found that
most of the universities were non-existent, but the report
was not placed before the Court as the complete exercise
had not been done. Learned counsel for the universities
have seriously disputed this fact and have submitted that
the universities are functioning. We have not gone into
this question as it is purely factual. In order to protect the
interests of the students who may be actually studying in
the institutions established by such private universities, it is
directed that the State Government may take appropriate
measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already
existing State universities in Chhattisgarh. We are issuing
this direction keeping in mind the interest of the students
and also Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, which contemplate
dissolution of the sponsoring body and liquidation of a
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 273
Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
university whereunder responsibility has to be assumed by
the State Government. It is, however, made clear that the
benefit of affiliation of an institution shall be extended only
if it fulfils the requisite norms and standards laid down for
such purpose and not to every kind of institution. Regarding
technical, medical or dental colleges, etc. affiliation may
be accorded if they have been established after fulfilling
the prescribed criteria laid down by All India Council of
Technical Education, Medical Council of India, Dental
Council of India or any other statutory authority and with
their approval or sanction as prescribed by law.
65. In view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition
(C) No. 19 of 2004 (Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh)
and Writ Petition (C) No. 565 of 2003 [ For directions
passed earlier, see below] (Gopalji Agarwal v. Union
of India) are allowed and provisions of Sections 5 and
6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya
(Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 are declared
to be ultra vires and are struck down. As a consequence
of such declaration, all notifications issued by the State
Government in the gazette in the purported exercise of
power under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act notifying the
universities (including Respondents 3 to 94) are quashed
and such universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions
have been established by such universities, steps may be
taken for their affiliation to already existing State universities
in accordance with the direction contained in para 64 above.
Parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court if
any dispute arises in implementation of this direction. All
writ petitions, civil appeals and transferred cases filed by
the private universities are dismissed.”
12. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs shows that this Court had
finally struck down the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002
Act. However, in order to protect the interest of the students who may
be studying in the institutions established by the private universities,
the State Government was directed to take appropriate measures
to get the institutions affiliated with the existing State universities.
274 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Meaning thereby, the career of the students who were still studying
in the institutions set up by the University, the establishment of which
had been set aside, in view of striking down of the 2002 Act, was
protected.
13. The issue before this Court is regarding the students who had passed
out prior to the filing of the writ petition in Professor Yash Pal’s case
(supra). Nothing has come on record to suggest that the University
in which the appellants studied was non-existent. Meaning thereby,
they must have studied and after passing the examination, had got
their degrees.
14. It is also a fact evident from record that despite there being judgment
in Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra), which was in public domain,
when the appellants applied for the post of librarian and were selected
in the year 2010, their candidature was not rejected on the ground
that the degree is from a university, established under the 2002 Act,
which was struck down. Rather, they were appointed and continued
working for a period of more than 5 years.
14.1 It is also a fact evident from the record that the Writ Petition
No.19559 of 2010 was filed in the High Court in the year 2010
only raising an issue that some of the private respondents in
the aforesaid writ petition, had been appointed as librarians
on the basis of certificates from a unrecognised institution.
Meaning thereby, the issue was well within the knowledge
of the State, immediately after the appointment of various
candidates on the post of librarians. Even otherwise, the
writ petition was finally dismissed by the High Court on
15.05.2014 as the same was lacking foundational facts to
prima facie establish that the institution from which the private
respondents in the aforesaid petition had passed out, was
a bogus institution. Still, as claimed by the counsel by the
appellant, the State had taken action and terminated the
services of the appellants.
15. Firstly, we may refer to the Division Bench judgment of the High
Court of Bombay in Anil Bhimraj Purane’s case (supra) on which
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The petitioner therein had passed his pre-University course from
an Extension Center of the University in the year 2004. On the
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 275
Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
basis thereof, the petitioner therein got admission in Bachelor of
Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) course. Nearly 4 years
after he got admission, a communication was issued to him to get
recognition letter from the University so as to consider the eligibility
of the petitioner therein for further course of action. The same was
challenged. The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner therein
had submitted his marksheet and the migration certificate issued
by the University at the time of taking admission. On consideration
thereof, he was admitted. The judgment of this Court in Professor
Yash Pal’s (supra) case was also referred to. However, while
holding that there was no misinterpretation or fraud on the part of
the petitioner therein, his admission was held to be valid.
16. What is evident from the facts of the case is that the University from
which the appellants had studied had been set up under the 2002 Act
enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature. The aforesaid Act was
declared to be ultra vires by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2005.
Till such time, the students had been studying and passing out. At
the time of declaration of the said Act to be ultra vires, this Court had
protected the students who were still studying. They were directed
to be transferred to alternative institutions recognized by the State.
Considering the aforesaid fact and also that in the factual situation
in hand, the appellants cannot be said to be at fault as they had
studied in the University, which has been set up under the 2002 Act
enacted by the State Legislature. Hence, they should not be deprived
of the benefits of the degree obtained by them while studying in the
University. It is not the case of the State that the University in which
the appellants studied was bogus or no study was actually imparted.
17. While recording the aforesaid findings, the next question would be
about the relief to which the appellants are entitled to. From the
facts on record, it is evident that the services of the appellants were
terminated only for the reason that the institution in which they had
studied was declared to be unrecognised. Accordingly, the orders
vide which the services of the appellants were terminated have to
be declared as illegal. Ordered accordingly.
18. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the High Court is
set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the High
Court is allowed. They are directed to be reinstated back in service,
276 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with continuity. However, considering the fact that they have not
performed their duties for the intervening period, and it cannot be
said to be a case where only the respondent-State is at fault, in our
view, they should not be entitled to any back wages.
19. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Education"Sign in to search