Priyanka Kumari vs The State Of Bihar

2026 INSC 167 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.797 OF 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5431 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No.30148 of 2022)

PRIYANKA KUMARI AND ORS. … Appellant (s)

VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.798 OF 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.981 of 2023)

SANJAY KUMAR RAI AND ORS. … Appellant (s)

VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.799 OF 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3595 of 2023)

GANESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. … Appellant (s)

VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s) Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2026.02.18 17:40:49 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 14 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 Court 1 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,

1 High Court of Judicature at Patna

Page 2 of 14 Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 was declared invalid as the Chhattisgarh Niji

Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 3 under which the University was

established, was later on declared to be ultra vires.

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

2 For short “the University” 3 For short “the 2002 Act”

Page 3 of 14 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

petition 6 was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed on

22.08.2018. The order passed by the Single Judge was upheld in intra-

court appeal 7 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

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 7 LPA No. 671/2018 Page 4 of 14 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

8 Writ Petition No. 9039/2012 9 (2010) 3 S.C.R. 1160

Page 5 of 14 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

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.

Page 6 of 14

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.

Page 7 of 14

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

Page 8 of 14 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 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

Page 9 of 14 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. Meaning thereby,

the career of the students who were still studying in the institutions set up

Page 10 of 14 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

Page 11 of 14 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 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.

Page 12 of 14 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

Page 13 of 14 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, 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.

……………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

……………….……………..J. (VIJAY BISHNOI)

New Delhi;

February 18, 2026.

Page 14 of 14