Court’s decision
The Supreme Court of India allowed a batch of civil appeals and set aside the Patna High Court’s judgment upholding termination of librarians appointed by the State of Bihar. The Court held that candidates who obtained degrees from a private university established under a State enactment—later declared ultra vires—cannot be penalised for legislative invalidity when they had lawfully studied and passed out before the statute was struck down. The termination orders were declared illegal. The appellants were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages.
Facts
The appellants had obtained Bachelor of Library Science (B.Lib.) degrees in 2004 from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, established under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002. The Act was enacted to permit self-financing private universities in Chhattisgarh.
The degrees were recognised at the time, including through a communication dated 26 January 2004 from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.
In Professor Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420, the Supreme Court declared Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act ultra vires on grounds of legislative incompetence. As a consequence, universities established under the Act ceased to exist. However, the Court directed protection of students who were still studying.
In 2009, Bihar advertised posts of librarians. The appellants were selected in 2010 and served for over five years before their services were terminated in August 2015 on the ground that their degrees were from an “unrecognised” institution.
Issues
The Supreme Court considered:
- Whether degrees obtained before the 2002 Act was declared ultra vires could be treated as invalid for public employment.
- Whether the protection granted in Professor Yashpal extended only to students still studying, or also to those who had already graduated.
- Whether termination of service after five years of satisfactory employment was legally sustainable.
Appellants’ arguments
The appellants argued that at the time they pursued and completed their degrees, the University was duly established under a State law and publicly recognised. They relied on the principle of prospective overruling and argued that actions taken prior to the judgment striking down the statute must be protected.
They cited the Bombay High Court decision in Anil Bhimraj Purane v. Union of India, where relief was granted in a similar factual scenario involving the same University. They further relied on Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. v. Union of India to argue that judicial invalidation of legislation should not retrospectively destroy vested rights.
It was contended that the appellants were not at fault and had no role in legislative incompetence.
Respondents’ arguments
The State of Bihar argued that once the 2002 Act was struck down, all degrees issued by universities created under it automatically became invalid. It was contended that the Supreme Court in Professor Yashpal protected only students still studying, not those who had already passed out.
The State maintained that principles of prospective overruling were inapplicable and that the appellants knowingly relied on degrees from a University whose legal status had been invalidated before their recruitment in 2010.
Analysis of the law
The Supreme Court examined paragraphs 64 and 65 of Professor Yashpal, where the Court declared the Act ultra vires but directed measures to protect students who were still studying.
The present Bench observed that nothing on record suggested the University was a sham or that education was not imparted. The appellants had genuinely studied and obtained degrees before the Act was struck down.
The Court reasoned that legislative invalidity cannot be visited upon innocent students who relied on a statute validly enacted at the time of their education.
While the earlier judgment expressly mentioned protection for current students, the underlying principle was to prevent injustice to bona fide students.
Precedent analysis
The Court referred to:
- Professor Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420 – Declared the 2002 Act ultra vires but protected students in transition.
- Anil Bhimraj Purane v. Union of India (Bombay High Court) – Upheld validity of admission based on degree from the same University.
- Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. v. Union of India – Explained prospective application of judicial declarations.
The Court harmonised these precedents to hold that degrees obtained before invalidation deserve protection.
Court’s reasoning
The Court emphasized three crucial factors:
- The appellants had studied and graduated before the Act was struck down.
- At the time of their studies, the University was recognised and functioning under a State statute.
- The State of Bihar appointed them in 2010 despite the judgment being in public domain, and allowed them to serve for over five years.
It was not the State’s case that the University was bogus or that no education was imparted.
The Court held that innocent students cannot be penalised for legislative incompetence. Therefore, termination solely on the ground of invalidation of the parent Act was unsustainable.
However, since the appellants had not worked during the intervening period after termination, back wages were denied.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeals. The appellants were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, but without back wages.
Pending applications were disposed of.
Implications
This ruling reinforces protection of bona fide students against retrospective hardship arising from judicial invalidation of statutes.
It clarifies that legislative incompetence cannot destroy vested academic qualifications earned in good faith.
The judgment also underscores that State authorities must act consistently; appointments made after judicial invalidation cannot later be undone without compelling legal basis.
For public employment jurisprudence, the decision balances equity with fiscal prudence by granting reinstatement but denying back wages.
Case Law References
- Professor Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420
- Anil Bhimraj Purane v. Union of India (Bombay High Court, WP No. 9039/2012)
- Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. v. Union of India (2010) 3 SCR 1160
FAQs
1. Are degrees from universities established under a later-invalidated law automatically void?
Not necessarily. If students graduated before the law was struck down and acted in good faith, courts may protect their degrees.
2. Can public employees be terminated years later due to invalidation of a university statute?
Termination may be set aside if employees were not at fault and obtained qualifications when the statute was valid.
3. Why were back wages denied despite reinstatement?
Because the appellants did not work during the intervening period and the Court found it inappropriate to burden the State with full back wages.
