A.Raghu v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewrth, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one rn the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in withholding the custody of the original Secondary School Certificate (SSC), lntermediate Transfer Certificate, lncome Certificate and Caste Ce(ificate of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitution al and subsequently direct the respondent no.3 college to release the original Secondary School Certificate (SSC), Intermediate Transfer Certificate, lncome Certificate and Caste Certificate of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unrier Section 15'1 CPC praying that in th,r circumstances stated in the affidavit file d rn support of the petition, the High C.oLrrt may be pleased to direct the respon,lent no.3 to release the original Secon lary School Certificate (SSC). lntermediate Transfer Certificate. lncome Certificerl-. and Caste Certificate of the petrtroner, f,ending disposal of the above writ petitio I Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HIcHER EDJCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PRABHAKAR PEFtl. SC FOR JNTU The Court made the following: ORDER ,ffiry -' HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA IT PETITION No.8126 OF 2O2 ORDER Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counsel for lawaharlal Nehru Technological University, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The oetitioner aDDroache the Court seekino oraver as under: "...to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l.4andamus questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in withholding the custody of the original Secondary School Certificate (SSC), Intermediate Transfer Certificate, Income Certificate and Caste Certificate of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitution a I and subsequently direct the respondent no.3 college to release the original Secondary School Certificate (SSC), Intermediate Transfer Certificate, Income Certificate and Caste Certificate of the petitioner and pass..." 3 The case of the petitioner in brief as Der the made in the affidavi b h suDDort of the Dresent writ Detitioo is as under: 2 SN. J \!P_8126 2025 The petitioner secured 89227 rank ir TGEAPCET-2024 examination conducted by respondent No.2 and allotted to respondent No.3 college and the petitioner deposited petitioner's original Secondary School Certificate (SS(-), Intermediate Transfer Certificate, lncome Certificate and ,laste Certificate. The petitioaer was allotted a seat in CEC General Department of 3'd respondent college. The Principal and n;rnagement of 3'd respondent college informed the petitioner to p ry the entire four years fee t3 a tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Fcur Lakhs only) to receive original educational certificates of the retitioner against the UGC quidelines. Aggrieved by the sarre, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ )etition.

4. The rearned counsel appearing on beha'f of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the preser t writ petition is squarely ccvered by the order of this Court rlated 29.11.2024 passed in W.P. No.17493 of 2024 and .he order dated

22.01.2021; passed in W.P. No.35290 of 2024.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf tf the respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not dispute the said submiss ons made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petllioner. - ' 'llflaflf::*ry -87 ._,, Z, 3 SN. J wp 8126 1025 In pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 6. 18.03.2025, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken out personal notice to the respondent No.3 herein and filed proof oF the said notice vlde Memo dated

17.06.2025 duly enclosing the original postal acknowledgment card indicating proof of service of notice upon the respondent No.3 issued by the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due to the respondent No.3 in compliance to the direction of this Court dated 1B'03.2025 passed in W,P' No.B126 of 2025.

7. Though the matter is listed on 13.10.2025 and the Memo of Proof of service dated 17.06.2025 has been filed, yet there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.3 when the case is called on 13.10.2025.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated

24.01.2020 passed in W.P. No.21137 of 2019 in D.vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana had struck down paragraph No.7 (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.O7.20t7 i.e., original certificates submitted by the petitioner/ candidate shall not to be returned to them, till they complete their course of study and appear for -r ) 4 \.r SN, J tp 8126 2025 the Univers;ity examination holding it as un- tonstitutional. A similar view was taken by this Court in Mahattna Gandhi Law College, NTR NagaL Hyderabad v. State of ,Telangana vide Judgment dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.,22417 of 2018. A Similar view was also taken v/de ludgment of this Court dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.25559 of 20),4 in Lakshmi Saranya v, The State of Telangana. 9 The relevant Dortion of the order of t 1is Court date d ()3.06.2024 passed in W.p. trto.341g5Of 2Q23 is extracted hereunder:

6. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment. dated 24.01.2O?-O in W.P.No.21137 of 2079 dealing vr th withholding of original academic qualiFication certificates of the stL dents observed at paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 as under:-

29. We are not expressing any oplnion on the right of the 3rd respondent-College to recover amounts to/ ards the entire coursr: fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 iakhs from the petitioner / her parent. but we hold that Yrithholdinq her cc rtificates, is oriq ina I imoermissible in law. academic qualifi cation

30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the c riginal academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who rad discontinued study of f4.B.B.S. I year course in the said crt lege, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 rnd 300-A of the 5 SN, J wp _8126 2025 Constitution of India; Para no.7(iii) of G.O.MS.No.114, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C.1) Department, dt.05.07.2017 is declared to be ultra vires the powers of the State Government under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd respondent is forthwith directed to return the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs. clearlv obser ed that The Divi s IOn Bench ve withho ldino the orioinal academic oualification ents is i ible in ates of

7. The High Court of Madras in K.Palanisamy Vs. Correspondent, vidya Vikash Matriculation School and others of Madurai Bench in wP (MD) 2O7 26 ol 2O19 decided on 17.10.2019 reported in MANU/TN/653812()19t held that certificates of students could not be held back by educational institutions citing financial dues.

8. In the judgment of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in S.Muthukamatchi vs. The Darector of Technical Education, Anna University and others in WP(MD) No'14394 of 2012 decided on 18.12.2012 reported in MANU/TN/216812012, it is observed as under: "l would not venture to get into that controversy, namely, whether the College is entitled to collect the balance of fees or not. The main grievance of the petitioner is about the certificates of her daughter. Those certificates are not ich, banks clai ma eceiDt on w Iike fixed deoosit r -l i Ii 1 i 6 SN. J \\0 8126 2025 qeneral lien in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Aet. Therefore, the certificates cannot b,: retained at anv rate. Hence, this writ Detition is allovued directinq thefo urthre sDo ndent to return all the oriqin a I Certificates deposited bv the petitioner flirthwith. "

9. In the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate of Education li Ors. in WP (C) 6658 of 2019 & CM APPL.3O816.O of 2019, dated 11.O7.2O19, it was held as under: - "8. There are methods of recovering the outs anding school fer:s ',arith the school. Even a suit could ha ye been filed bv Respondent No.2 upon the Dari:nts of t No such suit has been instituted by Respondent School f:- the recovery of outstanding fees. which ha n t f n n

9. In view of these facts. this Court is q f the ooinion ihr tt i-1+6 s cannot be withheld bv the resoondents. " ha Sch IL a6rlif

11. In S.Muthukama ch vs. The Dire(tor of Technical Anna Universitv in W.P.(MD) Nc.14394 of 2OL2, Ed u cation, dated 18.1 2.2OL2. the Madras Hiqh Court a t Madurai Bench cateqoricallv held that certificates of student is her /his orooertv Colleoe cannot detain the said certificates at anv rate. Even if the colle oe has anv monetarv claim. t h e reiection of the said certifi cates is not the met dbv which the claim can be h nf r the students oli n n e 7 SN, J wP 8126_2025

12. The Madras High Court in R.Pradeep Raj v' Commissioner, the Directorate of Technical Education reported in 2O19 SCC Online Mad.9385, and this Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs. The State of Telangana in W.P.No.2930 of 2022, dated 24,06,2022 and D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Prinicipal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare, Hydeabad in W.P.No'21t37 ol 2019, dated 24.O1.2O2O and also the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andrha Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Management Association v. The State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.9606 ot 2c21-, dated 27.10.2021 directed the college concerned authorities to return the certificates of the students and granted liberty to the college to ctaim fee by availing legal remedies in similar circumstances. 14, UGc auidelines, dated 23.04 -2oo7, part'cular, 'n paragraPh No.2 reads as under: "2. The Commission is of the vlew that the Institutions/U n iversities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the Scho ol /Instit tion, Leavinq Certi tcate. ma k sheet. caste certifi cate and o her documents in ori ina 1. "

10. This Court opines that UGC by its guidelines (referred to andextractedabove)haddirectedtheUniversities,towhichthe 8 SN. J \rp .8126 2025 colleges like the 3'd respondent are affiliated, '.o initiate action when such instances are brought to their noti-e and in spite of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the UGC, r cr action is being taken, anc on the other hand, students, like the petitioner, are forced to approach this Court seeking return of originals and only after orde.s are passed by this Court, the o-iginals are being returned to the students, notwithstanding tne fact that the colleges Iike the third respondent, if have any ,laim towards fee, the said institutions are required to initiat€ proceedings for recoverv ,tf fee dues and cannot resort to withholding of certiFicates oF the students in violation of the L (rC guidelines.

11. Takin into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circum:;tances, (b) The submissions of the lr:arned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, ;rnd the learned - Assistant Government Pleader for HiTher Education appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, (c) The observations made in various judgments (referred to and extracted above), -7 I I j i : I i : r w- ' :: 't ';t{' 9 SN, J \vp El26 2025 (d) The UGC Guidelines dated 23.O4.2OO7, particular, paragraph No.2 (referred to and extracted above), The writ petitaon is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to release the Origina! Secondary School Certificate (SSC), Intermediate Transfer Certificate, Income Certificate and Caste Certificate of the petitioner, which are in the custody of the respondent No.3, duly taking into consideration the observations made in various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and also the UGC Guidelines (referred to and extracted above), within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, there shal! be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition. shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sD/-A. .S. GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Prl. Secretary, Department of Higher Educatron, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

3. The Principal, Siddhartha lnstitute of Technology and Sciences, Narapally, Korremula Road, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Pincode.50l 301 4 One CC to SRI NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI, Advocate [OPUC] -::_E{:- 5 One CC to riRl PRABHAKAR pERt, SC FOR JNTU ( )PUCI 6 Two CCs t: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. Hrgt Court tor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 7 Two CD Coores T.. BS BS I t CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:1 311012025 I I I I I I I I I I I ) I I i ORDER WP.No.8126 of 202i O,o i-l E{ ,s s\: a.- ;_\ ?\ i)) i' ,'l .?;,'t' /-1 r) lt1 + til .J LL !-& DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a-