Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, on Wednesday (February 18) ordered the reinstatement of a group of librarians employed by the State of Bihar whose services had been terminated on the ground that the university from which they had obtained their degrees was established under a state legislation subsequently struck down as constitutionally invalid. Setting aside the Patna High Court's decision that had upheld the terminations, the Court held that degrees earned during the period when the governing law was in force and officially recognized could not be rendered invalid on account of later judicial developments. While directing reinstatement with continuity of service, the Court declined to award back wages, noting that the fault could not be attributed solely to the State. The appellants were not found to have misrepresented their qualifications or acted in any fraudulent manner.

The appellants were appointed as librarians by the State of Bihar in 2010 pursuant to a recruitment process initiated in 2009. They had obtained Bachelor of Library Science (B.Lib) degrees in 2004 from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. The University had been granted recognition by the State of Chhattisgarh, and a communication dated 26.01.2004 from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, recognized the degrees awarded by it for higher studies and employment.

Also Read: Post-Bail Conduct Not Valid Consideration In Appeal Against Grant Of Bail; Supreme Court Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted To Absconding Accused By MP High Court

On 11.02.2005, the Supreme Court declared Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act ultra vires in a writ petition filed by Professor Yash Pal. In 2010, a public interest litigation was filed before the High Court alleging that certain librarians had been appointed based on qualifications from an unrecognized institution. Though the writ petition was dismissed in 2014 for lack of foundational facts, the State terminated the appellants’ services in 2015 on the ground that their degrees were invalid.

The appellants challenged the termination before the High Court, which dismissed their writ petitions and intra-court appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that their degrees, obtained prior to the declaration of invalidity, could not be disregarded. The State argued that once the Act was struck down, degrees awarded under it became unrecognized.

The Court referred to Prof. Yash Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420 of the earlier decision declaring the 2002 Act ultra vires and recorded: “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.” It further recorded: “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.”

The Court noted that the issue before it concerned students who had passed out prior to the filing of the writ petition challenging the 2002 Act and observed: “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.”

It recorded that despite the earlier judgment being in the public domain, the appellants’ candidature was not rejected in 2010 and they continued working for more than five years. The Court 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 further stated: “It is not the case of the State that the University in which the appellants studied was bogus or no study was actually imparted.”

On the termination, the Court recorded: “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.”

Also Read: Mere Recovery Of Bank Property From Employee Without Proof Of Actual Prejudice Cannot Sustain Misconduct Charge; Calcutta High Court

The Court directed: “Accordingly, the orders vide which the services of the appellants were terminated have to be declared as illegal. Ordered accordingly. 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, with continuity.”

“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 are accordingly allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mohd Tauheed, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv and Mr. Sawan Datta Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR

Case Title: Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 167

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 (With Connected Appeals)

Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi