The Supreme Court has held that degrees obtained from universities established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 before it was struck down cannot be invalidated to penalise students who were not at fault, and has ordered reinstatement of librarians terminated on that basis.
- Case Title: Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
- Connected Matters: Civil Appeal Nos. 798 and 799 of 2026
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
- Date of Judgment: February 18, 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 167
Supreme Court Judgment on Validity of Degrees After Striking Down of Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s decision, which had upheld the termination of librarians appointed by the State of Bihar on the ground that their Bachelor of Library Science (B.Lib) degrees were obtained from a university that ceased to exist after the 2002 Act was declared ultra vires.
The Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages for the intervening period.
Case Background
The appellants were appointed as librarians in Bihar in 2010 pursuant to a recruitment advertisement issued in 2009. They had obtained their B.Lib degrees in 2004 from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, which had been established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002.
The 2002 Act was enacted to facilitate the establishment of self-financing private universities in Chhattisgarh. The University in question had been granted recognition by the State Government in 2002, and its degrees were also recognised by a communication dated January 26, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India .
However, in Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420, the Supreme Court declared Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act ultra vires on the ground of legislative incompetence, resulting in all universities notified under the Act ceasing to exist.
Despite this, the appellants were appointed in 2010 and served for over five years. Their services were terminated in August 2015 following departmental action, allegedly triggered after a Public Interest Litigation questioned the validity of appointments made based on degrees from the said University.
Their writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge and subsequently by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in intra-court appeals, leading to the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court .
Legal Issue: Are Degrees Obtained Before the 2005 Judgment Invalid?
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether students who had already graduated prior to the 2005 judgment striking down the 2002 Act could be deprived of the benefit of their degrees and consequently lose their employment.
The State argued that once the parent statute was declared ultra vires, all degrees awarded under it became unrecognised. It contended that the protection granted to Prof. Yashpal was limited only to students who were still studying at the time of the judgment.
The appellants, on the other hand, contended that they had completed their education in 2004, when the University was functioning under a duly enacted law and had governmental recognition. They were not at fault and had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation.
Court’s Analysis: Protection of Innocent Students
The Court closely examined paragraphs 64 and 65 of the Prof. Yashpal judgment, where it had directed the State Government to take appropriate measures to protect the interests of students who were studying in institutions established under the Act at the time it was struck down.
The present Bench noted that:
“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.”
The Court emphasised that the University had been established under a statute enacted by the State Legislature and that the appellants had studied and graduated before the Act was invalidated.
It was not the case of the State that the institution was bogus or that no education had been imparted.
Importantly, the Court observed that when the appellants applied for the librarian posts in 2010, five years after the 2005 judgment, the State did not reject their candidature on the ground that their degrees were invalid. They were selected, appointed, and allowed to serve for more than five years.
The Bench noted that even a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2010 had been dismissed for lack of foundational facts to show that the University was bogus.
No Fault on Part of Appellants
The Supreme Court held that the appellants could not be faulted for having studied in a university established under a law enacted by the State Legislature, which was only later declared ultra vires.
The Court reasoned:
“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.”
Relief Granted: Reinstatement Without Back Wages
Having concluded that the termination was solely on the ground of invalidation of the University, the Court declared the termination orders illegal.
The impugned judgment of the Patna High Court was set aside, and the writ petitions filed by the appellants were allowed.
The Court directed:
“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.”
Thus, while continuity of service was granted, preserving seniority and related benefits, the Court balanced equities by denying salary for the period during which the appellants did not work.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
