Summary
Librarians appointed by Bihar in 2010 were dismissed because their 2004 B.Lib degrees came from a Chhattisgarh private university whose enabling Act was struck down in 2005. The Court held that students who had studied and passed out before that judgment were not at fault and should not lose the benefit of their degrees, and ordered reinstatement with continuity but without back wages.
Issues
- Whether degrees obtained before 2005 from a university set up under the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002 lost their value when the Act's operative provisions were declared ultra vires.
- Whether the termination of the appellants' services on that ground was sustainable, and to what relief they were entitled.
Provisions considered
- Sections 5 and 6, Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2002The Court noted that these provisions were declared ultra vires in the Prof. Yash Pal case, so that the universities notified under them ceased to exist, with protection directed only for students then studying; it held this did not deprive earlier graduates of their degrees. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 16)
Held
- The Prof. Yash Pal judgment struck down Sections 5 and 6 of the 2002 Act, and to protect students then studying directed the State to arrange affiliation of the institutions with existing State universities; the present case concerned students who had passed out earlier. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Students who studied in a university established under a law enacted by the State Legislature, later declared ultra vires, are not at fault and should not be deprived of the benefit of degrees obtained there, particularly where the State does not claim the university was bogus or that no teaching was imparted. (¶¶ 13, 16)
- The appellants' candidature was accepted in 2010 despite the 2005 judgment being public, and they served for more than five years before termination; as the only ground for termination was that the institution had been declared unrecognised, the termination orders were illegal. (¶¶ 14, 14.1, 17)
- As the appellants had not worked during the intervening period and the fault was not the State's alone, they were entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but not to back wages. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside and the writ petitions allowed; termination orders declared illegal; appellants to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages.