PRIYANKA KUMARI AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 18-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJESH BINDAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 266 : 2026 INSC 167
Priyanka Kumari and Ors. 
v. 
The State of Bihar and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 797 of 2026)
18 February 2026
[Rajesh Bindal* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellants herein were dismissed 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, was 
declared invalid as the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya 
Act, 2002 under which the University was established, was later 
on declared to be ultra vires.
Headnotes†
Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 – The 
University in question (mentioned at serial no.23) was granted 
recognition by the State of Chhattisgarh under the provisions 
of the 2002 Act – 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 – The aforesaid 
Act was declared to be ultra vires by this Court vide order 
dated 11.02.2005 – Thereafter, the State of Bihar issued an 
advertisement for recruitment to the post of librarians and 
appellants were selected – PIL was filed 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 – PIL was 
dismissed – However, the State took action and the services 
of the appellants were terminated – Correctness:
Held: 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 
* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
267
Priyanka Kumari and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
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 – Accordingly, the orders vide which the services of the 
appellants were terminated is declared as illegal – Appellants are 
directed to be reinstated back in service, with continuity – However, 
they are not entitled to any back wages. [Paras 16-18]
Case Law Cited
Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. [2005] 2 
SCR 23 : (2005) 5 SCC 420; Anil Bhimraj Purane v. The Union of 
India and Others, Writ Petition No. 9039/2012; Goan Real Estate 
and Construction Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2010] 3 
SCR 1160 – referred to.
List of Acts
Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002.
List of Keywords
Education; Degree; Protection of students; Benefits of degree; 
Service Law; Termination; University; Unrecognised University; 
Reinstatement; Back wages.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 797  
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2019 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 671 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 798 and 799 of 2026
268
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Navniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv., Rizwan Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmed, 
Abhishek Kumar, Shivam Yadav, Mohd Tauheed, Gopal Jha, Jitesh 
Kumar, Umesh Kumar Yadav, Ms. Shireesha Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Pranjal Sharma, Samir Ali Khan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 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 petit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.