The High Court of Madras in K.Palanisamy v. Cor

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.R.S.AKHtLESWAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR HIGHER E )UCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI M.SRINIVAS rRt:DDy, SC FOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6 : -- The Court made the following ORDER t! iL a ra;iii-* "'4i]*.'!:^"4ry . ,:: '. :] ..'..:.:,}| --d HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.25952 OF 2O2s ORDER: Heard Sri G. R. S. Akhileswar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The etitio n ra r a h praver as under: "...to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus (i) Declaring the inaction of respondent No.6 in not issuing transfer certificate as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently direct the respondent to issue the transfer certificate any action taken pursuant thereto and pass such further or other order(s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (ii) and violative of articles 74, 79, 2l and 265 of the Constitution of India and/or pass...". 2 '.i: -i.!E:a,;.,: SN, J wP 25952 202i

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per t.h,: averments made bv the oetiti oner in the affidavit ._filed bv the petitioner in support of the present writ p1:tition is as l:: u nd er: The petitioner had studied B.Com in l'h r college of respondent No.6 from the year 2027 lo 2024 anr'' paid all the pending dues and completed his course. The tcrt; I fee for the said course is Rs. 24,000/- per year, out of whic[r tn amount of Rs. 14,000/- had been paid by the petitioner arrci lhe remaining due amount of Rs.10,000/- had to be paid ty the State Government under fees Reimbursement Scheme. Lt is further the case of the petitioner that due to non-pavr"tent of fee Reimbursement amount by the State Go',,e -nment, the respondents withheld Transfer Certificate of t.he petitioner. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the p rtitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) The order of this Court datec 8 04.2025 Dassed ea ier in oresent W.P. No.25952 of 2O25 in favour of the Detitio ner herein is extracted hereundr:r " There shall be interim direction to resip,)ndent Nos.2 and 5 to allow the petitioner to particirrate in the process of certificate verification for :'61691 ) SN, J wP 25952 2025 without insisting for production of Transfer Certificate from respondent No.6 coltege. However, the Transfer Certificate shall be obtained by the petitioner from respondent No.6 college within 7 days from today, and produce the same before the concerned Cotlege, where admission is granted to the petitioner. List this matter on 1-2.()9.2025". (B) The letter Lr.No.O5O8/ TGCHE/ Refund of Oriqinals/2 O24, dated 05.O8.2O24 ts the Tela qana Council of Hiqher Education. ed bv vdera bad add ress to the Reoistrars of OU, KU, TU. MG U, SU, PU. JNTU, JNAFAU & TMVV is extracte d hereunder: " Sir, Sub:- TGCHE Withholding of Original Certificates of the Students - Instructions to the U n ivers ities/Co lleg es- Regarding. Ref:- This office Lr. No. TGCHE/Fee Reimbursement /2024, dt.23.02.2024 While referring to the subject and reference cited that in continuation of earlier letter, it has come to the notice of the Government that certain private colleges are withhotdinq the oriqinal certifica tes of students on the oretext of not receivino fe reimbursement from the Govern ment. 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 joining for jobs and other pu rposes. 4 1a. ::::.:.,, SN-,.1 wP 25952 1025 -i Further, in terms of UGC (Grievance Redressal of students) Regulations 2018, the colleges art: barred from withholding or refusing to return any dc'c,rment in the form of certificates of degree, diploma or an\. other award or other document deposited with it by a str dents for the purposes of seeking admission in such institution. Therefore, I am by direction -equest the Universities to address/ instruct to all affiliated Private Colleges under its jurisdiction not to ins ist: payment of Tuition Fee from the students who are r:ligible for fee reimbursement and not to deny isr;u ing original certificates on the pretext of not rr:ceiving fee reimbursement from the Government. It i!; 1ot a healthy practice. Such colleges may be blacklistecl ,rnd shall not be considered for free reimbursement, v,rh ich will also affects affiliation of such colleges. The Colleges shall be directed to follow t.te instructions of the Gover nment scrupulously and failure in th s regard will be viewed seriously and stringent action will be nltiated against such colleges. " (c) The relevant Dortion of the order c,f this Court dated 03.06.2O24 oassed in W.P. No.34185 of 2023 is tracted her er:

6. A Division Bench of this Court vide its iu( gment, dated 24.O1.2020 in W.P.No.21137 of 2019 dealing witt- vithholding of original academic qualification certificates of the studr...n:s observed at paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 as under:-

29. We are not expressing any opinion on the . glrt of the 3rd respondent-College to recover amounts towardl; the entjre course fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 la<hs from the petitio n e r / her pa re nt, but we hol that with Iroldinq her oriq i na I rmoermrss ible in law. academic oualificati on certificates IS

30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; tlre action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the oriqiral academic , t t 5 sN. l lvP 25952 2015 qualiFication certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued study of 14.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 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 quatification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs. Divi nB n withholdinq the orioinal o bserved clearl academic qualification fa-alac ^f tlr e students is im rmt <ci h n

7. The High Court of Madras in K.Palanisamy Vs. Correspondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and Others of Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 2O726 of 2019 decided on 17.lO.2OL9 reported in MANU/TN/6538/ 2019, 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 Director of Technical Education, Anna Unaversity and others in WP(MD) No.14394 of 2O12 decided on 18.12.2012 reported in MANU/TN/2L6A/2OL2, it is observed as under: "I 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 'G ' ':r:..:1.1,#'+ i ' 'i '- 1{19.1 .t 6 s\,.1 \\'t, 15951 l0t5 certificates of her daughter. Those certificate! ; are not like fixed deoosit receiot on which. banks claim a qeneral lien tn terms ofSe c,t on 171 of tl'te Contract Act. Therefore, the certifi ates cann tbe lCta ined at anv rate. H ence, th is writ oetition is allowe d directinq the fourth resDond nt to return all tl-re oriq ina I Certi f icates deo sited bv the oetition r for

9. In the judgment of the High Court of Dr:llri in Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate of Education & ,Cr s. in Wp (C) 6658 of 2019 & CM APPL.3O816.O of 2019, dated 1L.O7.2OLg, it was held as under: - "8. Therc are methods of recovering the outstarrd ng school fees witlr the school. Even a suit coutd have _b een f iled bv Res Dondent No.2 uDon the Darenl:s of the strr d nts- rruhi chh as nrlt been done so fa r. \o such suit has becn instituted by Respondent School FoT i t€ recovery of outstanding fees.

9. In view of these fa ts, th is Court isoft 1€ that the Sch ol Leavtn o withheld bv the resD ndents. " Certific tes oDt nron 11 s The Di In S.Muthu ka atch Ed ucation. Anna Univer sitv in W.P.(MD) dated L4.L2.2012 the Madra s Hioh Cou cate oricallv held that tes of It ro Even if the coll oe has a nv moneta claim, the r,ei said ce rtificates is not the m thod bv wh ch ther < enfo rced. There i s no lien thr: cto r of Technical o.1 94ot2 2, at lt'ladurai Be nch ts her/his iat any rate, ection of the :laim can be on the certificates of c n n aif d tv- Coll stude r1t thc <aid ce rtifi c rt c r a 7 SN, J wP 25952 2tJ25

12. The Madras High Court in R.Pradeep Raj v. Commissioner, the Directorate of Technical Education reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad.93a5, and this Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs. The State of Telangana in W.P.No.293O of 2022, dated 24.()6.2022 and D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Prinicipal Secretary Health Medical and Famity Welfare, Hydeabad in W.P.No.21737 of 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 ol 2O2L, dated 27.1O.2021 directed the college concerned authorities to return the certificates and granted liberty to the college to claim fee by availing legal remedies in similar circumstances.

14. UGC Auidelines, dated 23.04.2OO7, in particular, paragraph No.2 reads as under: "2. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/Universities, 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, Le ertificate, mark sheet. caste certificate and other documents in oriqinal." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 5 This Court opines that the 6tr' respondent cannot withhold the Transfer Certificate oF the petitioner under any pretext. 8 :.JN. J wt,25952 20t 5 There is no iien on the certiFicate of the stucle 1ts since the certificate of tne student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right of children to get the Transfer Cert iicltes from one institute to join another institute cannot be dt:nied by the concerned authoritres merely because the tuition fr:e is due and if any amount is due from petitioner towards fr:e, the proper course availab e to the respondents is to initi;rt. appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovr.:ry before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be ;:clopted by the 6th respondent to make the petitioner pay the tlition Fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on thc p trt of the 6rh respondent in withhording the Transfer cert f rcates oF the petitioner for non-payment of tuition fee.

6. A bare perusal of the record also indicatos the specific instructions vide Lr.No.050B/TGCHE/Refund of originars/2024 dated 05.08.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telanqarra Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all ther llegistrars oF Universities (referred to and extracted above) clt:a rly indicates that specific instructions had been issued by the Government instructing all the affiliated private Colleges in its 1:risdiction not to insist payment oF tuition fee by the students rvhc are eligible for the fee reimbursement from the State Gor,,e _nment 1 i{l! [qt:i7 . tLr; .ni. - .. / ' ' {3*i.:ll: ...,:::1f ' 9 SN, J \\'P 15952 2025 further as per the guidelines of UGC the colleges cannot withhold or refuse to return any document in the form of certificates of degree, diploma or any other award or other document depositecj with it by students for the purpose of seeking admission in such institution. Therefore duly taking into consideration the view of the various High Courts on the subject issue in various Judgments, referred to and extracted above, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

7. Takinq into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The observations on the subject pertaining to withholding of original certificates of the student, by the Authorities concerned in the Judgments of the various Courts (referred to and extracted above), (c) The interam orders of this Court dated

29.08.2025 (referred to and extracted above), (d) The UGC guidelines, dated 23.O4.2OO7, (e) The specific instructions vide Lr.No.O5O8/ TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2O24 dated O5.08.2O24 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, 10 ''@ SN, J \\'P 2i952 202i t- . , . -:r1! !rG*._ i .". 'r. Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above), The Writ Petition is allowed as prayerl for. The 6th respondent is directed to issue the Transfer (:ertificate to the petitioner by duly taking into consid eration the observations in the various judgments referred to and extracted above and the specific instructions issued by the Secretary Telangana of Higher Education, Hyderabad, dated O5.08,2O24 (referred to and extrar:ted above) within a period of one (O1) week frorn the clate of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shatl be no order as to cost. The miscellaneous applications, if any pencirg, shall stand closed + To ,TRUE COPY// \ \ SD/-B. REKHA RANI $sb rsrANr REGtsTRAn i { SECTION OFFICER ;ecretariat Buildings, 1 The Principal Secretary, Hiqher Education Oepartlent I State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Chairman, Telangana counsel for Higher Educatron 2 Telangana. 3 The Vice Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad. 4. The Registrar. Osmania University, Hyderab'ad. 5. The convener Telangana lntegraied common entrance est, IVlahatma Gandhi ^ University, Anneparthy, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508254. 6. The Principal Keshav l\,4emorial lnstituteif commerce a rd Science. _ Narayanguda. Hyderabad. Telangana 500029. 7. Two CCs to Gp tOR HIGHER EbUCATION, Hioh Co rr, for the State of 8. One CC to SRt c.R.S AKH|LESWAR, Advocate [Opt_JC] 9. One CC to SRI M,SRINIVAS REDDY, SC FoR osve|I-R UNIVERSITY, Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI Hyderabad, Advocate (OPUC) , "{, @ SA BS l,

10. Two CD Copies .-, rlr'; I c.c.'['ODA\ t--: - .-:: :-,t: li ' :".:'- '.1.r .,:' '.N.,--,,:\. a 2025 i'..-,] Ir:1 ';:i... iL. I ^-r HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 i{ l{: ir, ORDER WP.No.25952 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \ $ \t)