!r. Syed Azhar Ali v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHAMMED ASIF Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR EDUCATIOt\l The Court made the following: ORDER ! HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITIO N No.25816 OF 2O2s ORDER: Heard Sri Mohammed Asif, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. The Detitioner aooroached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the actions of Respondents No 3 to 5 in withholding the Petitioner's original certificates even after issuing representations dated 09.06.2025 and 03.O1 .2025 as illegal, ex- facre, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unlawful, unconstltutional, non application of mind and in violation of Principles of Natural lustice and in violation of Article 14, 2l and 3004 of the Constitution of India and the directives issued by the Telangana State Council of Higher Education TSCHE dated 23.02.2O24 and against the catena of judgments of this Honourable Court and in violation of The UGC Grievance Redressal of Students Regulations 2023 and consequently direct the Respondents here in to Consider the representations dated 09.06.2025 and 03.07.2025 and to release all the original certificates of the Petitioner immediately and without demanding any additional payment in the interest of justice..." 2 SN' \p 2i816 2025

3. The case of the oetitioner in brie F as er the averments made in the affida vit filed bv th e itioner in e supDort of the D resent writ oetition ts as unt:le:r: Th: petitioner had taken admission into the college of respondent No.5 in lY. Tech., Software engine( rlng Program in the year 2014. The petitioner did not app('a - for the first semester examination and was not eligible to pr c,:eed to further semesters. At the time of admission, the petitioner had submitted his original educational docu ments/ce -tif icates such as Secondary School Certificate (SSC), Intermerlii:rte Certificate, B.Tech Marks Memo, CN4M, Provtsional Cer -i''icate, Degree Certificate, Transfer Certificate etc., which are r'-'tained by the respondent No.5 and in the possession of the r,::;pondent No.5. Aggrieve,J by the same, the petitioner filed this present writ petition.

4. PERUSED T E RECORD:- (A) The directions issued bv the Tr::lanqa na State Cou ncil of Hioher Edu cation. Hvderabad with re ard to ._. is extracted Oriqinal Certificates of the Students hereu nder. -) wP 25ti t5 SN 20 .l

2.5 PROF.SRIRAM VENKATESH SECRETARY Lr. N o.TSCH E / Fee Rei m b u rs efi ent / 2024 Dt: 23.O2.2O24 To The Registra rs of OU, KU, TU, MGU, SU, PU, ]NTU ANd JNA & FAU Sir, Sub: TSCHE - Withholding of Original Certificates of Students - instructions to the Colleges - Reg. -oOo - It has come to the attention of the Governmen[ that certain prrvate colleges are withholding the original certificates of students on the pretext of not receiving fee reimbursement from the Government. Withholding of original certificates will have significant implications for the students, especially when they need to present these documents to join for higher education, applying or;oining for jobs and other purposes. in term h r n Red ressa I students) Req lations 2018 the colleqes a barred from or refusinq to retu rn anv document in the form of withhol of deqree, diploma or anv other award or other certifica document deoo ited with it bv a students for the ourooses of seekino admissi on in such institutions, with a v ew to induce or comoel such student to Dav anv fee or fees in respect of anY course or Droqram of studv which such student does not intend to oursue. Therefore, I am bv direction reouest the U niversities to tn r cttoa P riv te coll n er I Fee from the iurisdiction not to insist Davment of Tuitio students who are elioible for fee reimbursem ent and not to on the oretext of natreceivinq denv issuino oriqinat certific h ltrAr-f h G v m rr-r ho hlralz te.la a.l chr il 7r^f ha n fro Cr rah co It n h .l l l i I I ! I I i I i I I I I I I I ! I t i t I I I t i I I ! I I i.,ii 1 \\.t \\p 25S r6 l0l5 consid ered for free reimburse ment, wh ich will also affects affiliation of such colleoes. The Colleges shall be directed to follow tl- € i lstructions of the Governnrent scrupulously and failure in this reg,rrd will be vrewed seriousl)' and stringent action will be initiated again,t such colleges. /ours fa ith fu lly Sd/-xxx SECRETARY (B) The Ietter Lr.t\ o.O5O8/ TGCHE/ Refund of Oriqinals/ 2024, dated O5.O8,2O24 issued bv the Te lanqana Council of Hiqher Educai: H dera add ressed to the Reoistrars of OU KU, T MGU SU P JNTU, .'NAFA U & TMVV is extracted h ereu n-d er: " s; ir, Sub:- TGCHE Withholding of Origin;ri Certificates of the Sl.udents - Instructions to the Universities/Col1lges- Regarding. Ref : - Thls office Lr. No. TGCHE/l'e: Reimbursement / 2.021, dt.23.02.2024 While referring to the subject and reft:rence cited that in continuation of earlier letter, it has come trl the notice of the Glvernment that certain private colleges ,;r,-' withholdinq the o|iginal certificates of students on the pret,xt of not receiving fee reimbursement from the Government. Withholding of original certificates v,i have significant inrplications for the students, especlally \'hen they need to present these documents to join for higher e(lucation, applying or. joining for jobs and other purposes. Further, in terms of UGC (Griev,rrce students) Regulations 2018, the college: are Redressal of barred from Effi- ) SN, J \P l5r{ r(' 2025 withholding or refusing to return any document in the form of certificates of degree, diploma or any other award or other document deposited with it by a students for the purposes of seeking admission in such institution. Therefore, I am by direction request the Universtties to address/ instruct to all affiliated private Colleges under its jurisdiction not to insist payment of Tuition Fee from the students who are eligible for fee reimbursement and not to deny issuing original certificates on the pretext of not receiving fee reimbursement from the Government. It is not a healthy practice. Such colleges may be blacklisted and shall not be considered for free reimbursement, which will also affects affiliation of such colleges. The Colleges shall be directed to follow the instructrons of [he Government scrupulously and failure in thrs regard will be viewed seriously and stringent action will be initiaied against such colleges. " (c) The releva n ortion of the orde r of this ou rt dated 03.06.2024 Passed in w.P No.34185 of 2023 is t extracted hereun

6. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment, dated 24.07.2020 in W.P.No.21137 of 201,9 dealing with withholding of original academic qualification certificates of the students observed at paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 as under:-

29. We are not expressing any opinion on the right of the 3rd respond e nt-Colleg e to recover amounts towards the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner / her parent, but we hold tha withhold inq her or oinal acad emic oualification imoermissible in law. certificates

30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued study of M.B.B.S. I year course in the said college, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the 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 --r\ ;.|;'- ':ffiIi _ _ _j* t_',rg*t.* -itj 6 SN, J \\p 25816 202-t is declared to be ultra vires the powei of the State Government under the Tclangana Educat' ':nal Instltutions (Rr:gulation of Admissions and Prohibition (: I ('-apitation Fee) i.,,-rss: (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd respor l':nt is forthwith directed io TetuTn the original 363flsn'1'' qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs' The Divis B withhol dino the c inal academic b served that qualification ificates of the stud ents rsr mDe rmissible in lelv-.

7. The High court of Madras in K Palanisamy Vs' Correspondent, Jidya Vikash Matriculation Schrrol and Others of Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 2O7 26 of 2r:)1-9 decided on f z.rO.ZOrg reported in MANU/TN /653A/20L9, held that certificatesofstudentscouldnotbeheldbac:kbyeducational institutions citing f inancial dues'

8. In the judgment of the High court of Madras' Madurai Bench in s. r.iuthuka matchi vs. The Direct.or of Technical EJr."tion, Anna University and others in WP( MD) No'14394 of 2O12 decided on 18.12.2Oi2 reported 1''t 9411I't/TN/2L68/2012' it is observed as under: e to get into that contro"(lrsy, namely, "I would not ventu r is eniitled to collect the ).rlance of fees whetlrcr the College rievance oF the petitiont r is about the or not. The main g c€ rtifjcates of her daug hter. Those certifit:ates are not ill.ksialln-a the Contract Le retained at ed directinq the o rio ina I lrrlhtryilh." r f h n I f f r

9. In the judgment of the High Court o{-tlelhi in Court on Directorate of Education & Ors' in WP (C) its own Motion oosa or 2019 & CM APPL.3O816.O of 2o19, dated 11'o7'2O19' it was held as under: - -Vs. "t]. There are methods of recovering the out f€:es with the school. Ev c s o n N n n n n f t,rnd ing school :tve been f led qnls---ef.--!be I r,, No such suit i l I I I I I i) i I i I i i : i t I 7 SN, J wp 2jlil6 2025 has been instituted by Respondent School for the recovery of outstanding fees.

9. In view of t ese facts, this Court is of the ooinion that the Schoo! Leavinq Certificates cannot be withheld bv t e respondents."

11. In S.Muthukamatch vs. The Director of Tech n ica I Anna Universitv in W.P.(MD) NO.14394 ol 2OL2. Education. dated 18.12.2012, the Madras Hioh Court at Madurai Bench cateooricallv held that certificates of student is her/ h is DroDertv. Colleqe cannot detain the said certificates at anv rate. Even if the colleqe has anv monetarv claim, the reiection of the sa id CErtificates s n ot the rnethod bv which the claim ca n he s no lien on the certifi h

12. In similar circumstances/ 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.293O ot 2O22t dated 24.06.2()22 and D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Prinicipal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare, Hydeabad in W,P.No.21137 of 2Ot9, dated 24.O1.2020 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.96OG ol 2O2L, dated 27.1O.2O21 directed the concerned authorities to return the certificates and granted liberty to the college to claim fee by availing legal remedies. paragraph No.2 reads as under:

14. UGC auidelines, dated 23.O4,2OO7, in particular, "2. The Commission is of the view that the I n stitutions/U n iversities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which Iimits 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 School /Institution, Leavinq ficate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other doluments in oriqinal." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 8 \ S\. J !rt 25816 202) 5, It is represented by the learned corrnsel appearing for the petitioner that the subject issue in t he present writ petition IS squarely covered by the orde:r of this Court dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.P. No.211ii7 of 2O19, the order dated 09.t2.2O22 passed in W.P. No.2:,24L7 of 2018 and the order dated O3.06.2025 passed in tttJ'.P. No. 34185 ot 2023.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the responclents does not dispute the said sutrnrissions made by the learned counsel appearing on b,ehalf of the petitio n er 7 In the light of the observations irr the various judgments of various Courts (referred to irnd extracted above), this court opines that certificate!; of student is her/his property. College cannot de1:ain the said certificates at any rate, Even, if the cr:rllege has any monetary claim, withholding the certil'ir:ates of the student is certainly not the method by whi<:h the claim can be enforced. There is no lien on the cerltificates of the I i i , ' I I i I I I , : 9 SN, J wp 25816 2025 students and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of relief in the present writ petition, Takino into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

8. case, (b) The instructions, dated 23.02.2(J24 and

05.08.2024 on the subject issue pertaining to withholding of original certificates of the students by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above), (c) The observations in the judgments of the various Courts on the subject issue (referred to and extracted above) \ (d) The orders of this Court dated 24.O1.2O2O passed in W.P. No.21137 of 2O19 and order dated O9.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.224l7 ot 2O18 and order dated O3.O6.2O24 passed in W.P. No. 34185 ot 2023. The Writ Petition is allowed, directing the 5th respondent to issue all the original certificates of the t0 S\, J r|p 25816 202-i petitioner i.e., Secondary School Certil'icate (SSC), Intermediate Certificate, B.Tech Marks Merno, Provisional Certificate, CMM, Degree Certificate, Tran:;l'er Certificate etc., by'duly taking into consideration the rrbservations in the various Judgments referred to and e:rl-racted above and also the directions issued by the Secre:t;rry Telangana of Higher Education, Hyderabad, vide letter No.TSCHE/Fee Reimbursement/2024, dated 23.O2.2024 and also vide Lr.No.O5O8/TGCHE/Refund of Originals / 2024, dated 05.08.2024 (referred to and extracted above), within a period of one (1) week from the date of re:ceipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no orrler as to cost. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, penc lcl in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed . //TRUE COPYii SD/.M.NAGAMANI ,t: :}ISTANT REGISTRAR i\ beCTION OFFICER To,

1. The Princrpal Secretary, Education Depa(ment, Secretariat Building, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education tI'GCHE), Opp. Mahavir Hospital, lvlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028

3. The Director, Jawaharlal Nehru Technologival Universi''7 Hyderabad (JNTUH), Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 085.

4. The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Univers t1, Hyderabad (JNTUH), Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 085.

5. The Princ,pal, Azad College of Engineering and Techno cgy, Peddamargalaram Village, Moinabad Ranga Reddy Di,rtrict, Telangana - 501 504. : : l'-ii,'i.',' :.":ac;EW =:'i -. 'qffi!:Fcr;lz . ,.;.*q:r, ...,a --r--- I i l

6. One CC to SRI MOHAIUTMED ASIF, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana Iour] B. Two CD CoPies. BSK HIGH COURT DATED:1311012025 I l CC TODAY I -,:1','.- - .'-. :1 .. J " i,. r:..:':: t 1 !iT 2[25 t", /i C') \.... ORDER WP.No.25816 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS N J f