Degrees Obtained Before 2002 Act Was Struck Down Cannot Be Invalidated: Supreme Court Protects Students’ Employment

Case Name: Priyanka Kumari & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.; Sanjay Kumar Rai & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.; Ganesh Kumar Singh & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 167; Civil Appeal Nos. 797, 798 and 799 of 2026

Date of Judgment/Order: 18 February 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Held: The Supreme Court held that students who obtained degrees from a university established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 prior to its being declared ultra vires cannot be penalized or deprived of employment benefits solely on that ground. Where the university was established under a duly enacted statute and there was no allegation that it was bogus or that no education was imparted, the degrees earned prior to the judgment in Prof. Yash Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh are entitled to protection. Consequently, termination of services based solely on invalidation of the parent statute was illegal.

Summary: The appellants were appointed as librarians in the State of Bihar on the basis of Bachelor of Library Science degrees obtained in 2004 from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. In Prof. Yash Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420, this Court declared Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act ultra vires, resulting in cessation of such private universities, while directing protection of students who were still studying. After the appellants had been appointed in 2010 and served for over five years, their services were terminated on the ground that their degrees were from an unrecognized institution. The High Court upheld the termination. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that they had studied and passed out before the 2002 Act was struck down and were not at fault, and that the earlier judgment must be read in light of protection to students. The Court observed that the university was functioning under a statute valid at the time of study, degrees were recognized by governmental authorities, and there was no allegation that the institution was bogus. The Court distinguished between students still studying at the time of invalidation and those who had already graduated, holding that absence of express protection does not imply deprivation. It further noted that the State itself had appointed the appellants despite the judgment being in the public domain and allowed them to continue for years.

Decision: The appeals were allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the writ petitions filed by the appellants were allowed. The termination orders were declared illegal, and the appellants were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages for the intervening period. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.