Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajesh Bindal, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Priyanka Kumari and ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. – Respondents
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)
With
Sanjay Kumar Rai and ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.798 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.981 of 2023)
With
Ganesh Kumar Singh and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.799 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3595 of 2023)
Decided On : 18-02-2026
Service Law – Termination – Services of appellants were terminated only for reason that institution in which they had studied was declared to be unrecognised – Nothing has come on record to suggest that University in which appellants studied was non-existent – Appellants cannot be said to be at fault as they had studied in University, which has been set up under 2002 Act enacted by State Legislature – They should not be deprived of benefits of degree obtained by them while studying in University – It is not the case of State that University in which appellants studied was bogus or no study was actually imparted – Appellants to be reinstated back in service, with continuity – However, considering fact that they have not performed their duties for intervening period, and it cannot be said to be a case where only respondent-State is at fault, they should not be entitled to any back wages. (Paras 13, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 are aggrieved against judgment dated 11.04.2019, passed by High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 671 of 2018. High Court dismissed appeal against order of Single Judge dated 22.02.2018 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2016, thereby affirming termination of services of petitioners therein. Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 798 and 799 of 2026 are before this Court, aggrieved against dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal No. 567 of 2018 by High Court vide order dated 01.11.2022. High Court dismissed the LPA relying upon earlier order dated 11.04.2019 passed in LPA No. 671 of 2018, since both matters involved same issue.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order passed by High Court is set aside. Writ Petition filed by appellants before High Court is allowed.
Result : Appeals 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 Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 20023[For short “the 2002 Act”] 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 Act. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2005,4 [Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420] 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 [Writ Petition No. CWJC No. 19959/2010] 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 petition6 [CWJC No. 6827/2016] 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 appeal7 [LPA No. 671/2018] 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 imparted by it, was recognized by the Central Government. The appellants passed out in the year 2004. Writ Petition was filed bef
Termination – Candidates should not be deprived of benefits of degree obtained by them while studying in University.
Termination of employment based on degrees from a University declared invalid was unlawful; the court upheld the legitimacy of prior qualifications.
Off-campus study centers require prior approval of the UGC and the State Government, and appointments made contrary to this requirement are liable to be canceled.
Singhania University was established under a Statute and automatically recognized. It needed no recognition by any other authority and hence the prayers of the Petitioners were granted.
The recognition of degrees obtained through distance learning from universities with off-campus study centers beyond territorial jurisdiction is subject to the UGC's regulations and public notices.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
