Priyanka Kumari vs State of Bihar - 2026 Supreme(SC) 178

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 178

RAJESH BINDAL, VIJAY BISHNOI
Priyanka Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 challenged a High Court judgment dated 11.04.2019 dismissing their Letters Patent Appeal against termination of services as librarians. (!)
The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 798 and 799 of 2026 challenged a High Court order dated 01.11.2022 dismissing their Letters Patent Appeal, relying on the earlier judgment in LPA No. 671 of 2018. (!)
Appellants obtained Bachelor of Library Science degrees from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002, and passed out in 2004; the university was recognized by the state and Central Government at the time. (!) (!) (!)
The 2002 Act was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court on 11.02.2005, leading to the university ceasing to exist. (!) (!)
Appellants were selected and appointed as librarians by the State of Bihar on 22.05.2010 and worked satisfactorily until termination on 22.08.2015 following a PIL and state directions. (!) (!) (!)
A PIL filed in 2010 challenging appointments based on degrees from unrecognized institutions was dismissed on 15.05.2014 for lack of foundational facts. (!) (!)
The Supreme Court in the 2005 judgment striking down the 2002 Act directed protection for students still studying by affiliating institutions to existing state universities, but did not address past graduates. (!) (!) (!)
No evidence suggests the university was non-existent, bogus, or that no education was imparted; appellants studied under a state-enacted law later invalidated. (!) (!) (!)
Appellants were appointed in 2010 despite the 2005 judgment being public, worked for over five years, and were not rejected at selection stage. (!)
Appellants cannot be faulted for studying in a university established under state legislation; they should not be deprived of degree benefits. (!) (!)
Termination solely due to later declaration of the institution as unrecognized is illegal. (!)
Appellants entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but no back wages, as they did not perform duties during the intervening period and fault is not solely with the state. (!)
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; writ petitions allowed. (!) (!)

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 Court¹[High Court of Judicature at Patna] 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, Raipur, Chhattisgarh,²[For short “the University”] was declared invalid as the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 178

RAJESH BINDAL, VIJAY BISHNOIPriyanka Kumari – AppellantVersusState of Bihar – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

Related Judgments

Priyanka Kumari VS State of Bihar - 2026 2 Supreme 136

PRIYANKA KUMARI AND ORS. vs THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 389

Giriraj Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Sharma VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 318

Jyoti Agarwal VS State of Sikkim - 2021 Supreme(Sikk) 50

SMT RAMYA H N vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24213

ANJUMAN ARA BEGUM vs THE ASSAM ROYAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9856

THAKOR MITENDRASINH NARPATSINH VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 488

Basudeb Biswas VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 662

CMJ University Shillong, Meghalaya, Rep. By Chancellor VS Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 1041

SRI. MAHESHA. H. S. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 8291

RAJESH BINDAL, VIJAY BISHNOI
Priyanka Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent