K.Pa lanisamv v. Corresoondent, Vidva Vikas h Matriculation School and Others

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GUDUSHEELA SAI KRISHN A, REPRESENTING FOR SRI DUODU NAVA KIRAN ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR HIGHER El)IJCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MALIPEDDI SRINIVAT; REDDY, SC FOR OU The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.32404 OF 2025 ORDER Heard Sri Gudusheela Sai Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Duddu Nava Kiran, tearned counsel on record appearing on behalf of the petitioners, tearned Assistant Government pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, tearned Standing Counsel for Osmania University appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitionerS ADD roached this Court seek tn ora er as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.5 in withholding the petitioners, original certificates as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutiona I and violation of the principles of natural justice, and regulations mentioned under Rule 2(F)(6) and Rule 4(C) issued by the U.G.C. notification vade file No.14-412012(Cpp-1) in October 2018 and violations issued by Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 05-08-2O24 and violation of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of constitution of India consequently direct Respondents to issue all the original certificates and documents (SSC, Intermediate and LLB) which are holding with Respondent No.6.... ". SN..I \\,P :12 r01 l0l5 .1

3. The case of the oetitioners in brief as Der averm nts made bv the oetitioners in th I affidavit filed bv the oetitioners in SUDDO rt of the presen t r^rrit petationis as under: i) The Fetitioners had studied in Responder t No. 5 College- i.e., Mahatma Gandhi Law College, NTR Narr;rr, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad pursuing different five-year Integra rd Law Courses (BBA LLB, El.Com LLB, and B.A LLB) under the Iovernment Fee Reimbursement Scheme. ii) Upon completion oF courses, the petitic rr:rs approached the college on 06.1O.2025 for collection of oril nal certificates including SIjC, Intermediate, and LLB marks r r,lmos, Transfer Certificate, and Bonafide Certificate. However, t r,t authorities of Respondent No. 5 college refused to release tlr r certiFicates on the ground that the Government of Telange|;r had not yet released the pending fee reimbursement amoun:;. iii) The Petitioners submitted written ret €sentations on 06.10.2025 to the Principal and Chairman Df the College requesting release of their certiFicates, but tl e management demanded payment of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,0(r )/'- from each of the petitioners herein as a condition for returr,ilg petitionerS' original documents. Despite repeated visits an I requests, the 5i\. J wP 12,104 2025 college management Failed to release the certificates and stated that unless the Petitioners paid the said amount, their documents would not be issued. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) The letter Lr.No.O5O8/TGCHE / t o24 dated O5.08.2024 i the Telanoana Council of iqher Education, Hvderabad addressed to the Reoistrars of OU, KU, TU, MGU, SU, PU, JNTU, JNAFAU & TMVV s extracted hereunder: ' "Sir, Sub: - TGCHE Withholding of Original Certificates of the Students - Instructions to the U n iversities/Colleges- Regarding. Ref : - This office Lr. No. TGCHE/Fee Reimbursement /2024, dt.23.O2.2024 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 coll the orto inal certificates of students on the Dretext of not ece rvr n fee reimburse ent from the Govern ment r 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. Further, in terms of UGC (Grievance Redressal of students) Regulations 2018, the colleges are barred from withholding or refusing to return any document in the form of certificates of degree, diploma or any other award ,+ S\ J U P llJtu 1ir\i or other document deoc p u rp o s es r *.ii " g";;i: ::::.i,j Il i I.HHl,:?:s ro r t h e " iffi 4l:"i,'r'H'llt-:=:ri,t,r,Ir,#',:{i ::1. t9 den r issuins orisinar certiricates ;; il: r.e i m b u rs e m e ^ fl _, 8,,.::U' lt I;; Bl"lllil,.il;l ::f,r,:: ma.y pe ur..rii,i"j.i, .,,.,, no. arrects aniiiatJo.,"or l,," ll,t!:::eme',t, which wir aisl .. tne Government ,.rrortn,19't::t:9 !9 fo r 'r the instructions of j "ii""lt^'I- a nd failure - this regard will be vie',ued seriousrv 'rgent action wil re initiated against such colleges.,, ", The Co eges sha b r.#=, n J'o.liXl "1' " D ho hi d 24. 1.2 2 In w.P .No. I 7o of n c d c urt vir ft: its iudq m ent, l)-t 9 dea lin q a Ci rl:ion certific u e rve a a a r h (l!;. 29 a nd 30 as 5 t u nder: - "29. We are not expressing any opini, 'r on the right of the 3rd respondent-College to recover amcr r ts towards the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs la khs fro m the petitic, n er / her parent, 'ithholdino her tl:ificates, is h 3 3rd acadentic qual jfication discont nued study of college, is declared as

0. Therefore, the Writ petition is allow:d; the action of respo nde nt_ College rn not returni. g the original certificates of the pet I (,ner who had N4.B.B.S. I year cour: e in the said illega l, arbitrary and vio.t ive of Article I I i I I ) SN. J wP 12101 2025 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 Admislions 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. " The Division Bench ve clearlv observed that orlo nal academic oualificataon withholdino the certificates of the stude nts is impermissible in law. 6 The Hi o h Court of Madras in "K.Pa lanisamv Vs. Corresoondent, Vidva Vikas h Matriculation School and Others" of Madurai Bench in WP ( MD 20726 of 2019 decided on 17 10.2019 reoorted in MANU/TN/6s38/2019. held that certifacates of students could not e held back bv educational institutions citino fina ncial dues.

7. In the iudo ment of the Hioh Cour of Madras, Madurai Bench in S.Muthukamatchi vs. The Director of Technica I Education, Anna Universitv and others in WP(MD ) No.14394 of 2012 decided on 18.12. 20L2 reDorte u nder /2L6At 2OL2, it is observe d in MANU,/TN 6 SN. J wP .12101 2025 --"1 "I would not venture to get into thz, fiontroversy, namely, whether the College is enti ed t ) collect the balanc:e of fees or not. The main grievance o' e petitioner is at,out the certificates of her daur; I er. Those certif ates are not like fixed deoosi t _ receipt on w hi ch banks clai m a oeneral lien in tern of Section s 17a ot the Contra Act. Theref re, the certif cates tb ere atned at anv rate H e n c ) this writ th fou h € Spondent to urn all iited bv the wed tr inal C oetitioner forthwith. "

8. In the iudqment of the Hioh Co rtof Dt:lhi in Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate f Educatior & Ors, in WP (c) 6658 of 2O1 9 CM APPL.3O816.O c f 2019, d d '| LL.O7.2O19, it was hel d as under:- "8. There are methods of recovering the outsl, rding school fees wth the school. Even a suit could hayl been filed bv ResDondent No.2 uoon the Daret tts of students. which has not been one so far. llo such su it has been instituted by Respondent School for 'l.e recovery of outstanding fees. In view of these facts, this Cou rt is of the 9. ootn ion that the School Leavano (:(:rtificates ot be wi hh e res onden 9 ducation An In S,Muthukamat ch vs. The Director of Technical r!o.14 94 of the Madras Hioh Court at d 18.12.201 2 lverst D l 2()12- Madura i Bench cateooricall held that rtificates of student is her /his propertv . Colleqe cannot rlt:tain the said certificates at anv rate. Even if the col erqe has anv monetarv claim the reiection of the said cer :ificates is not 7 s\. J wP 12401 2025 the method bv which the claim can be enforced. There is no lien on the certificates of the students

10. 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 tn W.P.No.293O 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.21137 of 2OL9, dated 24.OL.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 of 2021, dated 27.LO.2O21 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.

11. Based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 24.O1.2O2O passed in W.P.No.2LL37 of 2O19. this Court had allowed W.P.No.34185 of 2O23 vide its order ! 8 SN. J \\/P il+0{ 202i dated 03.O6.2024 granting identical relief as granted W.P.No.2L137 of 2Ot9. .,1

12. UGC at d

3.O o07 in particu!ar, Daraqrao h No.2 reads as under: "2. The Commission is of the ,./ ew that the Institutions/Un iversities, by way of retainin( rhe certificate in original, force retention of admitted studeri; whrch limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercisi (: other o ptions of lo ininq other institutions of their choice. Ho,r e yer, it would not e permissible for institutions and Universit € s to retai n the b 3rrk sheet, caste t" n L 3 a f the Detition ers conte nds that the subiect issue I n the present writ Detiti f tha rt, dat d 08.10.202s Dassed in W.P.No..lli 52of2 25 Cou a n b the Iearned couns el aDDearino onb ehalf of .1tre resDond ent No to4 n ion made bv learned counsel ADDE rrno on beha tf of the r €rtitione !'s. u ON DC CL N L4. This Court opines that the 5th respondent .i:nnot withhold the petition€)rs' original certificates such as SS r ., Intermediate and L.L.B lrlarks memos, Transfer Certificates and Bonafide Certificates (ltc., under any pretext. There is r,r lien on the I 9 SN. J wP -i2,104 2025 certificate of the students since the certificate of the student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right of students to obtain their CertiFicates from one institution to join another institution cannot be denied by the concerned authorities merely because the tuition fee is due and if any amount is due from the petitioners towards such fees, the proper course available to the respondents is to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners for recovery before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the 5th respondent to make the petitioners pay the tuition fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on the part oF the 5th respondent in withholding the Transfer Certificates of the petitioners for non-payment of tuition fee.

15. A bare perusal of the record indicates the specific instructions vide Lr.No.050B/fGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated 05.08.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above) and the same clearly indicates that specific instructions had been issued by the Government instructing all the affiliated Private Colleges within its jurisdiction not to insist on payment of tuition fee by the students who are eligible for the fee reimbursement from the 10 SN..I \!P r 2.t01 l0lj State Gov.ernment. Further as per the gtr celines of UGC, colleges cannot withhold or refuse to return a - y document such as of certifrcates of degree, diploma or any o - ,r award or other document deposited with it by students for. 'he purpose of seeking adrnission in such institution. Therefor: 'i uly taking into consideraticn the view of the various High Cour.s on the subject issue in various Judgments, referred to and extri c ted above, this Court opinerj that petitioners are entifled for r1 . nt of relief as prayed for ir the present writ petition. Takino into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and ctrcums tances of the

16. case, (b) The observations on the srrhject issue pertaining to withhording of originar certif cates of the students, by the Authorities concerned in th,: Judgments of the various High Courts (referred to a trl extracted above), (c)

29.Oa.2025 The interim orders of this ( ourt dated passed in W.p.No.25952 of 2O25 (referred to and extracted above), (d) The UGC guidelines, dated 23.04 .Zltt.t, t1 SN, J wP 12404 2025 (e) The specific instructions vide Lr.No.O5O8/ TGCHE/Refund of Originalsl2024 dated 05.08.2O24 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities \ t (referred to and extracted above), The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The 5th respondent is directed to issue the original academic certificates of the petitioners i.e., SSC,Intermediate, L.L.B Marks Memos, Transfer Certificates, and Bonafide Certificates to the petitioners herein by duly taking into consideration the observations in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and the specific instructions issued by the Secretary Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No.O5O8/ TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated O5.O8.2024 to all the Registrars of the Universities including the 4rh respondent University herein(referred to and extracted above) and also the UGC guidelines, dated 23.O4.2OO7 (referred to and extracted above) within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to cost. f The rniscellaneous applications, if any per cling, shall stand SN. .I \\t,.I101 1025 -o closed. To, /a- SECTIOITOFFICER 1 Jl-'u chief Secretary, Terangana secretariat Road ]entrar Secretariat, //TRUE COPY// Khairtabad, Hvderabad- 500004 SD/- I .IJRINIVASA REDDY ASS SITANT RE9ISTRAR

2. The Prrncipal.rlecretary, Higher Education Department, (,rangana secretariat Road. Central Secretariat, Khairtabad, Hyderabad _ 5OC{ :.1 "

3. The Chairman, Telangana counsel for Higher Er t_cation, Hyderabad Telangana Opc. Mahavii Hospital, Masab Tank,Hyderal ari _ 500028'

4. The Vice Charrcellor, Osmania University Hyderabad 5 IL"_ Chairman, I\,4ahatma Gandhi Law College, Gangl I I Govardhan Reddy, NTR Nagar, L.B. Nagar, R.R Dist, Telangana"

6. One CC to SRI DUDDU NAVA KtRAN, Advocate [OpU() 7. One CC to SRI IVALIPEDD| SR|N|VAS REDDY, SC FOF oU IOPUC] 8 Two ccs to (]P FoR HTGHER EDUCATTON, High (; ,Lrrt for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies BSR b I HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.32404 of 2025 ,44. 1loi!. \t'-' \ 1 0 ?5 '1.. ", ,+ .a ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS