The Supreme Court, while passing an important order in a matter concerning the dismissal of employees appointed by the State of Bihar at the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, clarified that if a university was established under a law that was later declared unconstitutional, students cannot be held responsible who had validly obtained degrees from such a university before the annulment of that law.
The Court observed that the students had completed their studies from an institution established in accordance with the law prevailing at the relevant time, and therefore, it would be unjust to invalidate their degrees or penalize them based on a subsequent judicial declaration.
Applying the same principle, the Court directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the services of employees who had been dismissed from the post of Librarian. However, since they had not worked during the intervening period, the Court declined to grant them back wages for that duration.
The said order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi on the appeal filed by Priyanka Kumari and other connected matters.
The Bench found 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.”
Besides the above observations, the Court further found that,
“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.”
In fact, in the year 2009, the State of Bihar issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Librarian. Pursuant thereto, on 22.05.2010, the appellants were duly selected and appointed to the post of Librarian, and they continued to discharge their duties satisfactorily.
Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was instituted before the High Court alleging that certain appointments to the post of Librarian had been made based on qualifications obtained from an unrecognized university.
The writ petition was dismissed on 15.05.2014 on the ground of absence of foundational facts.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the PIL, the State had taken action, and as a result of which the appellants’ services were terminated vide order dated 22.08.2015 in the light of directions issued by the Joint Secretary, Education Department, Bihar.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on 22.08.2018. The order of the learned Single Judge was subsequently affirmed in an intra-court appeal. The instant appeal has been filed by assailing the aforesaid orders.
The Counsel for the appellant submitted that after the enactment of the Act, 2002, the University was established. It was recognized by the Central Government. The appellants had completed their studies in the year 2004.
It was further submitted that a writ petition was thereafter filed before the Supreme Court challenging the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature to enact the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 2002. By judgment dated 11.02.2005, Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act were declared ultra vires. The said petition was filed by Professor Yash Pal, former Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Read Also: https://practicinglawyer.in/no-compensation-for-disability-arising-from-tobacco-use-sc/
In the said judgment, it was observed that students then pursuing their studies in the concerned universities were to be accommodated in other recognized universities within the State to ensure that their academic careers did not suffer.
According to the Counsel for the appellant, the Court was aware of the fact that the management which had established the universities was not at fault, having acted under a statute validly enacted at the relevant time, though subsequently struck down. The paramount consideration was that students should not be prejudiced.
Applying the same principle by way of analogy, it follows that students who had already graduated prior thereto are equally entitled to protection, and consequently, their degrees and certificates cannot be invalidated.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent stated that, once the 2002 Act was declared as ultra vires on account of legislative incompetence, then any certificates/diplomas or degrees awarded by the University to the students will be unrecognized. In this way, no relief can be granted even if the students had earlier passed out from the University.
Respondent also submitted that the principles of prospective overruling cannot be applied in the matter.
The Court ruled that,
“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.”
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the civil appeal is allowed. The appellants are directed to be reinstated in service with continuity. In view of the intervening period during which no duties were discharged by the appellants and the absence of exclusive fault on the part of the State, they will not be entitled to any back wages.
Case: Priyanka Kumari & Others vs The State of Bihar & Others
Date of Order: 18.02.2026
See the Order: Priyanka Kumari & Others vs The State of Bihar & Others
