PRIYANKA KUMARI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Validity of Degrees Obtained Prior to Statutory Invalidation — Protection of Students' Careers Against Retrospective Effects of Declaring a University Act Ultra Vires.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 167
Decision Date: 18-02-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002; Doctrine of Ultra Vires; Administrative Law - Termination of Service; Protection of Student Interests in Legislative Invalidation
- Facts: The appellants obtained Bachelor of Library Science (B.Lib) degrees in 2004 from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, which was established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. At the time of their studies, the University was recognized by both the State and Central Governments. In 2005, the Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh declared the 2002 Act ultra vires, leading to the closure of such universities. Subsequently, the appellants were appointed as librarians by the State of Bihar in 2010. However, in 2015, the State terminated their services on the ground that their degrees were from an unrecognized institution, following the Yashpal judgment.
- Procedural Posture: The appellants challenged their termination through writ petitions in the Patna High Court. A Single Judge dismissed the petitions, and this was later affirmed by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals. The High Court held that since the 2002 Act was struck down, the degrees were invalid. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions.
- Issue: Whether the degrees obtained by students from a university established under a law later declared ultra vires remain valid for the purpose of employment, especially when the students completed their courses before the law was struck down?
- Holding: Yes, the degrees remain valid. The termination of services based solely on the subsequent unconstitutionality of the Act under which the University was established is illegal.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that in the Yashpal judgment, the Supreme Court was conscious of the interests of students and had directed the State to protect those currently studying by affiliating them with other universities. By logical extension, students who had already completed their degrees before the Act was declared ultra vires must also be protected. The appellants were not at fault as they studied in a then-recognized institution. Furthermore, the State of Bihar had appointed them in 2010 despite the 2005 judgment being in the public domain and allowed them to work for five years. Since there was no allegation of fraud or the university being "bogus" in terms of actual education imparted, the appellants should not be deprived of the benefits of their degrees.
🔒 For Members Only