The Supreme Court has set aside the termination of librarians appointed by the State of Bihar, holding that degrees obtained from a university established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002—before the Act was declared ultra vires—remain valid for employment purposes.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that students who passed out prior to the striking down of the Act cannot be penalized, as the university was a recognized institution at the time of their study.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Priyanka Kumari and others against the judgment of the Patna High Court, which had upheld the termination of their services. The appellants were terminated on the ground that their B.Lib degrees were invalid because the university they attended was established under a state law later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court directed the reinstatement of the appellants with continuity of service but denied back wages.
Background of the Case
The appellants obtained their Bachelor of Library Science (B.Lib) degrees in 2004 from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur. This university was established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 and was recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh.
In 2005, the Supreme Court, in the case of Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., declared Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act ultra vires, leading to the cessation of universities established under it.
The State of Bihar appointed the appellants as librarians in May 2010. However, following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and subsequent administrative action, their services were terminated on August 22, 2015, on the premise that their degrees were invalid. The appellants challenged the termination before the Patna High Court, where a Single Judge dismissed their writ petition in 2018. The Division Bench subsequently dismissed their Letters Patent Appeal in 2019, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Navniti Prasad Singh, appearing for the appellants, argued that the university was duly recognized when the appellants pursued their courses. He contended that in Prof. Yashpal’s case, the Supreme Court was conscious of protecting students’ interests, directing that existing students be shifted to other universities. By analogy, he argued that the degrees of students who had already passed out must also be protected. He relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Anil Bhimraj Purane v. The Union of India.
On behalf of the State of Bihar, the counsel submitted that once the 2002 Act was struck down, degrees awarded by universities established under it became unrecognized. The State argued that the protection in Prof. Yashpal’s case was limited to students who were still studying and did not extend to those who had already passed out. It was further submitted that the appellants were aware of the invalidity of their degrees when they applied for the post in 2010.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court closely examined the judgment in Prof. Yashpal’s case, specifically noting that while the Act was struck down, the Court had issued directions to protect the interests of students then studying in such institutions.
The Bench observed that there was nothing on record to suggest the University was non-existent or “bogus” when the appellants studied there. The Court noted that the appellants passed out in 2004, prior to the judgment in Prof. Yashpal’s case (2005).
Addressing the validity of the degrees, Justice Bindal, writing for the Bench, observed:
“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.”
The Court also noted that the State of Bihar had appointed the appellants in 2010, years after the 2002 Act was struck down, implying the issue was in the public domain, yet their candidature was not rejected at that time.
The Bench referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Anil Bhimraj Purane, which granted relief to a student under similar circumstances, noting that the admission was valid at the time it was taken.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the termination of services solely on the ground that the institution was declared unrecognized was illegal.
The Court ordered:
“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, with continuity.”
However, regarding financial benefits for the period the appellants were out of service, the Court held:
“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.”
The appeals were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.
- Case Title: Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
- Case No: Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 5431 of 2026)
