University Act Later Struck Down; But It Cannot Nullify Prior Employment Eligibility: Supreme Court Reinstates Terminated Librarians
The Apex Court held that candidates who had obtained degrees from a university established under a statute later declared unconstitutional could not be penalised where the institution functioned lawfully at the time and there was no allegation that it was bogus or that no education was imparted.
Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the termination of librarians whose appointments had been cancelled and directing their reinstatement, held that previous eligibility for public employment cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that the candidate’s degree was obtained from a university whose enabling statute was subsequently struck down.
The Court was hearing civil appeals challenging High Court judgments affirming the termination of appellants appointed as librarians after their degrees were treated as invalid because the statute under which their university had been established was later declared ultra vires.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed: “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 the 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 recognised 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 at the University. It is not the case of the State that the University in which the appellants studied was bogus, or that no study was actually imparted”.
Background
The appellants had obtained Bachelor of Library Science degrees in 2004 from a university established under a State enactment providing for private universities. The institution had been granted recognition by the State Government, and its courses were recognised by the Union Government for higher studies and employment.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in an earlier constitutional challenge, struck down key provisions of that State enactment as ultra vires, resulting in such universities ceasing to exist.
Years later, the appellants applied for and were selected to librarian posts and served for more than five years. A public interest litigation questioned certain appointments based on degrees from that university.
Though the petition itself was dismissed for lack of foundational facts, the State nevertheless terminated the appellants’ services on the ground that their degrees were invalid.
Court’s Observation
The Court began by examining the legal effect of the earlier judgment striking down the statute. It noted that while the statute had been declared unconstitutional and the universities established under it ceased to exist, the earlier judgment had expressly protected students who were studying at the time and directed that they be accommodated in recognised institutions to safeguard their careers.
The Bench then addressed whether those who had already passed out before the statute was struck down could be deprived of the benefits of their degrees. It found that there was no material to suggest the university was fictitious or that academic instruction had not been imparted. In such circumstances, the appellants could not be faulted for having studied in an institution that had been established under a law validly enacted at the time.
The Court also noted that when the appellants applied for public employment years after the earlier judgment, their candidature was not rejected and they were duly selected and appointed. The State was aware of the controversy relating to the institution as early as the time of recruitment, but still allowed them to serve for several years before taking action.
Referring to precedent, the Court relied on a High Court judgment involving a similar factual situation where admission obtained based on credentials from the same university was upheld in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
The Bench emphasised that the appellants’ degrees were obtained while the enabling statute was operative and the institution was functioning under statutory recognition. Therefore, they should not be deprived of the benefits of such qualifications merely because the law under which the institution had been created was later struck down.
Conclusion
The Court held that termination orders passed solely on the ground that the university had been declared unrecognised were illegal and liable to be set aside.
It consequently quashed the High Court’s judgment and allowed the writ petitions, directing reinstatement of the appellants with continuity of service but without back wages for the intervening period.
Cause Title: Priyanka Kumari & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 167)
Appearances
Appellants: Senior Advocate Navniti Prasad Singh, with Advocates Abdul Wasih, Rizwan Ahmad, Abhishek Kumar, Shakeel Ahmed, Amir Kaleem, Himanshu Gupta, Mohd Shoeb Ansari, Gopal Jha, Jitesh Kumar, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Shireesha Sharma, Sawan Datta, Tilak Vij, Nimish Arjaria, Shreyash Bhardwaj.
Respondents: Advocates Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan.