Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 167
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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)
PRIYANKA KUMARI AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.798 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.981 of 2023)
SANJAY KUMAR RAI AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.799 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3595 of 2023)
GANESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.02.18
17:40:49 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 14
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 are aggrieved
1
against the judgment dated 11.04.2019, passed by the High Court 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,
1
High Court of Judicature at Patna
Page 2 of 14
2
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, was declared invalid as the Chhattisgarh Niji
3
Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 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
2
For short “the University”
3
For short “the 2002 Act”
Page 3 of 14
4
Act. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2005, 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
5
Interest Litigation (PIL) 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
6
petition was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed on
22.08.2018. The order passed by the Single Judge was upheld in intra-
7
court appeal 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
4
Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420
5
Writ Petition No. CWJC No. 19959/2010
6
CWJC No. 6827/2016
7
LPA No. 671/2018
Page 4 of 14
imparted by it, was recognized by the Central Government. The appellants
passed out in the year 2004. Writ Petition was filed before this Court,
challenging legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature
to enact the 2002 Act. This Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2005 had
struck down the 2002 Act. It is mentioned in the aforesaid judgment that
the students who are studying in the University will have to be shifted to
other recognized universities in the State, so that their career does not
suffer. This clearly makes out a case that this Court was conscious of the
fact that the management which had set up the University was not at fault,
as it was established under the 2002 Act enacted by the State, which was
later struck down by this Court. The students who were studying should
not suffer. Taking analogy therefrom, even the students who had passed
out earlier, even their degrees and certificates have to be protected.
5.1 Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Bombay
High Court in
Anil Bhimraj Purane Versus The Uniion of India and
8
where identical issue was involved pertaining to the University
Others,
in question and the relief was granted to the petitioner therein. He further
referred to the judgment of this Court in
Goan Real Estate and
9
Construction Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., in support of the
8
Writ Petition No. 9039/2012
9
(2010) 3 S.C.R. 1160
Page 5 of 14
argument that the earlier judgment in Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra)
has to be read on the principle of prospective overruling. Meaning thereby,
the actions taken prior to the judgment of this Court declaring the 2002
Act to be ultra vires, have to be protected.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted
that once the 2002 Act has been struck down, any certificates / diplomas
or degrees awarded by the University will become unrecognized. On the
declaration of the 2002 Act to be ultra vires on account of legislative
incompetence, no relief can be granted to any of the students even if they
had earlier passed out from the University. Principles of prospective
overruling cannot be applied in the case in hand. When the appellants
made applications for selection to the post of librarians in the year 2010,
they very well knew about the fact that their degrees had been declared
to be invalid as the 2002 Act under which the University was established
and in which they studied, had been declared to be ultra vires . It is clearly
evident from the judgment in that
Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra),
protection was granted only to the student, who were still studying in the
University and not to those who had already passed out. There is no merit
in the present appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paperbook.
Page 6 of 14
8. The undisputed facts of the case in hand can be summed up
briefly. The State of Chhattisgarh enacted Chattisgarh Niji Kshetra
Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. The University of Technology and Science,
Raipur, was established under the aforesaid Act. It is also claimed that a
public notice was issued on 28.05.2014 by the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra
Vishwavidyalaya Regulatory Commission, Government of Chattisgarh,
Education Department, detailing the list of universities established under
the 2002 Act and the name of the University finds mention therein. The
appellants passed out in the year 2004 from the University after obtaining
Bachelor's degree in Library Sciences (B.Lib). It is also evident from a
letter dated 26.01.2004, from the Government of India, Ministry of Human
Resource Development that the Degrees/ Diplomas/ Certificates including
pre-University Courses (equivalent to 10+2) awarded by the University
were recognized for higher studies and employment.
9. Professor Yash Pal, former Chairman of UGC filed a writ
petition before this Court on 04.12.2003 challenging the validity of the
2002 Act on the ground of legislative incompetence of the Chhattisgarh
State. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2005, Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act
were declared ultra vires. As a consequence, all such universities ceased
to exist.
Page 7 of 14
10. In 2009, an advertisement was issued by the State of Bihar for
selection to the post of librarians. The appellants were selected and
appointed on 22.05.2010. A PIL was filed before the High Court raising an
issue that some persons have been appointed as librarians on the basis
of certificates received from an institution, which was not recognized. As
the writ petition lacked foundational facts to show that the University was
bogus, the same was dismissed on 15.05.2014. It was claimed by the
counsel for the appellant that though the writ petition was dismissed but
the State took action otherwise. The services of the appellants were
terminated vide order dated 22.08.2015 in the light of directions issued by
Joint Secretary, Education Department, Bihar vide letter dated
16.07.2015.
11. While dealing with the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to refer to the final findings
recorded by this Court in the in
Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra)
paragraphs 64 and 65 thereof. The same are extracted below:
As a consequence of the discussion made and the
“64.
findings recorded that the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the
Act are ultra vires and the gazette notifications notifying the
universities are liable to be quashed, all such universities shall
cease to exist. Shri Amarendera Sharan, learned Additional
Solicitor General has submitted that UGC had conducted an
Page 8 of 14
inquiry and it was found that most of the universities were non-
existent, but the report was not placed before the Court as the
complete exercise had not been done. Learned counsel for
the universities have seriously disputed this fact and have
submitted that the universities are functioning. We have not
gone into this question as it is purely factual. In order to protect
the interests of the students who may be actually studying in
the institutions established by such private universities, it is
directed that the State Government may take appropriate
measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already
existing State universities in Chhattisgarh. We are issuing this
direction keeping in mind the interest of the students and also
Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, which contemplate dissolution
of the sponsoring body and liquidation of a university
whereunder responsibility has to be assumed by the State
Government. It is, however, made clear that the benefit of
affiliation of an institution shall be extended only if it fulfils the
requisite norms and standards laid down for such purpose and
not to every kind of institution. Regarding technical, medical
or dental colleges, etc. affiliation may be accorded if they have
been established after fulfilling the prescribed criteria laid
down by All India Council of Technical Education, Medical
Council of India, Dental Council of India or any other statutory
authority and with their approval or sanction as prescribed by
law.
65. In view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition
(C) No. 19 of 2004 ( Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh )
and Writ Petition (C) No. 565 of 2003 [ For directions passed
Page 9 of 14
earlier, see below] ( Gopalji Agarwal v. Union of India ) are
allowed and provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh
Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman)
Adhiniyam, 2002 are declared to be ultra vires and are struck
down. As a consequence of such declaration, all notifications
issued by the State Government in the gazette in the
purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the aforesaid
Act notifying the universities (including Respondents 3 to 94)
are quashed and such universities shall cease to exist. If any
institutions have been established by such universities, steps
may be taken for their affiliation to already existing State
universities in accordance with the direction contained in para
64 above. Parties would be at liberty to approach the High
Court if any dispute arises in implementation of this direction.
All writ petitions, civil appeals and transferred cases filed by
the private universities are dismissed.”
12. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs shows that this Court
had finally struck down the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act.
However, in order to protect the interest of the students who may be
studying in the institutions established by the private universities, the State
Government was directed to take appropriate measures to get the
institutions affiliated with the existing State universities. Meaning thereby,
the career of the students who were still studying in the institutions set up
Page 10 of 14
by the University, the establishment of which had been set aside, in view
of striking down of the 2002 Act, was protected.
13. The issue before this Court is regarding the students who had
passed out prior to the filing of the writ petition in Professor Yash Pal’s
. Nothing has come on record to suggest that the University
case (supra)
in which the appellants studied was non-existent. Meaning thereby, they
must have studied and after passing the examination, had got their
degrees.
14. It is also a fact evident from record that despite there being
judgment in Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra), which was in public
domain, when the appellants applied for the post of librarian and were
selected in the year 2010, their candidature was not rejected on the
ground that the degree is from a university, established under the 2002
Act, which was struck down. Rather, they were appointed and continued
working for a period of more than 5 years.
14.1 It is also a fact evident from the record that the Writ Petition
No.19559 of 2010 was filed in the High Court in the year 2010 only raising
an issue that some of the private respondents in the aforesaid writ petition,
had been appointed as librarians on the basis of certificates from a
unrecognised institution. Meaning thereby, the issue was well within the
knowledge of the State, immediately after the appointment of various
Page 11 of 14
candidates on the post of librarians. Even otherwise, the writ petition was
finally dismissed by the High Court on 15.05.2014 as the same was
lacking foundational facts to prima facie establish that the institution from
which the private respondents in the aforesaid petition had passed out,
was a bogus institution. Still, as claimed by the counsel by the appellant,
the State had taken action and terminated the services of the appellants.
15. Firstly, we may refer to the Division Bench judgment of the
High Court of Bombay in Anil Bhimraj Purane’s case (supra) on which
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The
petitioner therein had passed his pre-University course from an Extension
Center of the University in the year 2004. On the basis thereof, the
petitioner therein got admission in Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and
Surgery (BHMS) course. Nearly 4 years after he got admission, a
communication was issued to him to get recognition letter from the
University so as to consider the eligibility of the petitioner therein for
further course of action. The same was challenged. The Bombay High
Court held that the petitioner therein had submitted his marksheet and the
migration certificate issued by the University at the time of taking
admission. On consideration thereof, he was admitted. The judgment of
this Court in Professor Yash Pal’s (supra) case was also referred to.
Page 12 of 14
However, while holding that there was no misinterpretation or fraud on the
part of the petitioner therein, his admission was held to be valid.
16. What is evident from the facts of the case is that the University
from which the appellants had studied had been set up under the 2002
Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature. The aforesaid Act was
declared to be ultra vires by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2005. Till
such time, the students had been studying and passing out. At the time of
declaration of the said Act to be ultra vires , this Court had protected the
students who were still studying. They were directed to be transferred to
alternative institutions recognized by the State. 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. It is not the case of the State that the
University in which the appellants studied was bogus or no study was
actually imparted.
17. While recording the aforesaid findings, the next question
would be about the relief to which the appellants are entitled to. From the
facts on record, it is evident that the services of the appellants were
terminated only for the reason that the institution in which they had studied
Page 13 of 14
was declared to be unrecognised. Accordingly, the orders vide which the
services of the appellants were terminated have to be declared as illegal.
Ordered accordingly.
18. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the High
Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the High
Court is allowed. 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.
19. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………….……………..J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
New Delhi;
February 18, 2026.
Page 14 of 14
2026 INSC 167
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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)
PRIYANKA KUMARI AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.798 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.981 of 2023)
SANJAY KUMAR RAI AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.799 OF 2026
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3595 of 2023)
GANESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.02.18
17:40:49 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 14
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026 are aggrieved
1
against the judgment dated 11.04.2019, passed by the High Court 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,
1
High Court of Judicature at Patna
Page 2 of 14
2
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, was declared invalid as the Chhattisgarh Niji
3
Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 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
2
For short “the University”
3
For short “the 2002 Act”
Page 3 of 14
4
Act. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2005, 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
5
Interest Litigation (PIL) 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
6
petition was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed on
22.08.2018. The order passed by the Single Judge was upheld in intra-
7
court appeal 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
4
Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420
5
Writ Petition No. CWJC No. 19959/2010
6
CWJC No. 6827/2016
7
LPA No. 671/2018
Page 4 of 14
imparted by it, was recognized by the Central Government. The appellants
passed out in the year 2004. Writ Petition was filed before this Court,
challenging legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature
to enact the 2002 Act. This Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2005 had
struck down the 2002 Act. It is mentioned in the aforesaid judgment that
the students who are studying in the University will have to be shifted to
other recognized universities in the State, so that their career does not
suffer. This clearly makes out a case that this Court was conscious of the
fact that the management which had set up the University was not at fault,
as it was established under the 2002 Act enacted by the State, which was
later struck down by this Court. The students who were studying should
not suffer. Taking analogy therefrom, even the students who had passed
out earlier, even their degrees and certificates have to be protected.
5.1 Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Bombay
High Court in
Anil Bhimraj Purane Versus The Uniion of India and
8
where identical issue was involved pertaining to the University
Others,
in question and the relief was granted to the petitioner therein. He further
referred to the judgment of this Court in
Goan Real Estate and
9
Construction Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., in support of the
8
Writ Petition No. 9039/2012
9
(2010) 3 S.C.R. 1160
Page 5 of 14
argument that the earlier judgment in Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra)
has to be read on the principle of prospective overruling. Meaning thereby,
the actions taken prior to the judgment of this Court declaring the 2002
Act to be ultra vires, have to be protected.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted
that once the 2002 Act has been struck down, any certificates / diplomas
or degrees awarded by the University will become unrecognized. On the
declaration of the 2002 Act to be ultra vires on account of legislative
incompetence, no relief can be granted to any of the students even if they
had earlier passed out from the University. Principles of prospective
overruling cannot be applied in the case in hand. When the appellants
made applications for selection to the post of librarians in the year 2010,
they very well knew about the fact that their degrees had been declared
to be invalid as the 2002 Act under which the University was established
and in which they studied, had been declared to be ultra vires . It is clearly
evident from the judgment in that
Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra),
protection was granted only to the student, who were still studying in the
University and not to those who had already passed out. There is no merit
in the present appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paperbook.
Page 6 of 14
8. The undisputed facts of the case in hand can be summed up
briefly. The State of Chhattisgarh enacted Chattisgarh Niji Kshetra
Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. The University of Technology and Science,
Raipur, was established under the aforesaid Act. It is also claimed that a
public notice was issued on 28.05.2014 by the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra
Vishwavidyalaya Regulatory Commission, Government of Chattisgarh,
Education Department, detailing the list of universities established under
the 2002 Act and the name of the University finds mention therein. The
appellants passed out in the year 2004 from the University after obtaining
Bachelor's degree in Library Sciences (B.Lib). It is also evident from a
letter dated 26.01.2004, from the Government of India, Ministry of Human
Resource Development that the Degrees/ Diplomas/ Certificates including
pre-University Courses (equivalent to 10+2) awarded by the University
were recognized for higher studies and employment.
9. Professor Yash Pal, former Chairman of UGC filed a writ
petition before this Court on 04.12.2003 challenging the validity of the
2002 Act on the ground of legislative incompetence of the Chhattisgarh
State. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2005, Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act
were declared ultra vires. As a consequence, all such universities ceased
to exist.
Page 7 of 14
10. In 2009, an advertisement was issued by the State of Bihar for
selection to the post of librarians. The appellants were selected and
appointed on 22.05.2010. A PIL was filed before the High Court raising an
issue that some persons have been appointed as librarians on the basis
of certificates received from an institution, which was not recognized. As
the writ petition lacked foundational facts to show that the University was
bogus, the same was dismissed on 15.05.2014. It was claimed by the
counsel for the appellant that though the writ petition was dismissed but
the State took action otherwise. The services of the appellants were
terminated vide order dated 22.08.2015 in the light of directions issued by
Joint Secretary, Education Department, Bihar vide letter dated
16.07.2015.
11. While dealing with the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to refer to the final findings
recorded by this Court in the in
Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra)
paragraphs 64 and 65 thereof. The same are extracted below:
As a consequence of the discussion made and the
“64.
findings recorded that the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the
Act are ultra vires and the gazette notifications notifying the
universities are liable to be quashed, all such universities shall
cease to exist. Shri Amarendera Sharan, learned Additional
Solicitor General has submitted that UGC had conducted an
Page 8 of 14
inquiry and it was found that most of the universities were non-
existent, but the report was not placed before the Court as the
complete exercise had not been done. Learned counsel for
the universities have seriously disputed this fact and have
submitted that the universities are functioning. We have not
gone into this question as it is purely factual. In order to protect
the interests of the students who may be actually studying in
the institutions established by such private universities, it is
directed that the State Government may take appropriate
measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already
existing State universities in Chhattisgarh. We are issuing this
direction keeping in mind the interest of the students and also
Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, which contemplate dissolution
of the sponsoring body and liquidation of a university
whereunder responsibility has to be assumed by the State
Government. It is, however, made clear that the benefit of
affiliation of an institution shall be extended only if it fulfils the
requisite norms and standards laid down for such purpose and
not to every kind of institution. Regarding technical, medical
or dental colleges, etc. affiliation may be accorded if they have
been established after fulfilling the prescribed criteria laid
down by All India Council of Technical Education, Medical
Council of India, Dental Council of India or any other statutory
authority and with their approval or sanction as prescribed by
law.
65. In view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition
(C) No. 19 of 2004 ( Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh )
and Writ Petition (C) No. 565 of 2003 [ For directions passed
Page 9 of 14
earlier, see below] ( Gopalji Agarwal v. Union of India ) are
allowed and provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh
Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman)
Adhiniyam, 2002 are declared to be ultra vires and are struck
down. As a consequence of such declaration, all notifications
issued by the State Government in the gazette in the
purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the aforesaid
Act notifying the universities (including Respondents 3 to 94)
are quashed and such universities shall cease to exist. If any
institutions have been established by such universities, steps
may be taken for their affiliation to already existing State
universities in accordance with the direction contained in para
64 above. Parties would be at liberty to approach the High
Court if any dispute arises in implementation of this direction.
All writ petitions, civil appeals and transferred cases filed by
the private universities are dismissed.”
12. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs shows that this Court
had finally struck down the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act.
However, in order to protect the interest of the students who may be
studying in the institutions established by the private universities, the State
Government was directed to take appropriate measures to get the
institutions affiliated with the existing State universities. Meaning thereby,
the career of the students who were still studying in the institutions set up
Page 10 of 14
by the University, the establishment of which had been set aside, in view
of striking down of the 2002 Act, was protected.
13. The issue before this Court is regarding the students who had
passed out prior to the filing of the writ petition in Professor Yash Pal’s
. Nothing has come on record to suggest that the University
case (supra)
in which the appellants studied was non-existent. Meaning thereby, they
must have studied and after passing the examination, had got their
degrees.
14. It is also a fact evident from record that despite there being
judgment in Professor Yash Pal’s case (supra), which was in public
domain, when the appellants applied for the post of librarian and were
selected in the year 2010, their candidature was not rejected on the
ground that the degree is from a university, established under the 2002
Act, which was struck down. Rather, they were appointed and continued
working for a period of more than 5 years.
14.1 It is also a fact evident from the record that the Writ Petition
No.19559 of 2010 was filed in the High Court in the year 2010 only raising
an issue that some of the private respondents in the aforesaid writ petition,
had been appointed as librarians on the basis of certificates from a
unrecognised institution. Meaning thereby, the issue was well within the
knowledge of the State, immediately after the appointment of various
Page 11 of 14
candidates on the post of librarians. Even otherwise, the writ petition was
finally dismissed by the High Court on 15.05.2014 as the same was
lacking foundational facts to prima facie establish that the institution from
which the private respondents in the aforesaid petition had passed out,
was a bogus institution. Still, as claimed by the counsel by the appellant,
the State had taken action and terminated the services of the appellants.
15. Firstly, we may refer to the Division Bench judgment of the
High Court of Bombay in Anil Bhimraj Purane’s case (supra) on which
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The
petitioner therein had passed his pre-University course from an Extension
Center of the University in the year 2004. On the basis thereof, the
petitioner therein got admission in Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and
Surgery (BHMS) course. Nearly 4 years after he got admission, a
communication was issued to him to get recognition letter from the
University so as to consider the eligibility of the petitioner therein for
further course of action. The same was challenged. The Bombay High
Court held that the petitioner therein had submitted his marksheet and the
migration certificate issued by the University at the time of taking
admission. On consideration thereof, he was admitted. The judgment of
this Court in Professor Yash Pal’s (supra) case was also referred to.
Page 12 of 14
However, while holding that there was no misinterpretation or fraud on the
part of the petitioner therein, his admission was held to be valid.
16. What is evident from the facts of the case is that the University
from which the appellants had studied had been set up under the 2002
Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature. The aforesaid Act was
declared to be ultra vires by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2005. Till
such time, the students had been studying and passing out. At the time of
declaration of the said Act to be ultra vires , this Court had protected the
students who were still studying. They were directed to be transferred to
alternative institutions recognized by the State. 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. It is not the case of the State that the
University in which the appellants studied was bogus or no study was
actually imparted.
17. While recording the aforesaid findings, the next question
would be about the relief to which the appellants are entitled to. From the
facts on record, it is evident that the services of the appellants were
terminated only for the reason that the institution in which they had studied
Page 13 of 14
was declared to be unrecognised. Accordingly, the orders vide which the
services of the appellants were terminated have to be declared as illegal.
Ordered accordingly.
18. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the High
Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the High
Court is allowed. 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.
19. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………….……………..J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
New Delhi;
February 18, 2026.
Page 14 of 14