J. Nikhil Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the respondents 3 and 4 to return the original edur;, tional certificates of the petitioner immediately, pending disposal of the main writ tetition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: ASST. Gp FOR HlGt- ER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION t{o.32426 OF 2O2s ORDER: Heard Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The petitione r apDroached the Cou rt seekinq oravcr as under: "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in not returning the original certificates to the petitioner vide Recetpt of Certificates 2024-2025, Serial No.149, dated 14.08.2024, demanding to pay the entire fees of the academic year is highly illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 , 2l and 300-A of Constitution oF India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to return the original educational certificates of the petitioner immediately in the interest of justice". 3 The case of the oetitioner in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the Detitioner in suooort of the oresent writ oetition is as u nder: 2 SN, J w 32426 2025 The petitioner secured good rank in T(:- EApCET-2024 examination conducted by respondent No.2 ir rd allotted to respondent No.4 College and the petitioner depos;i ed petitioner,s original educational certificates. The petitioner i rs got seat in better college in the 3.d phase of allotment of so, ts. When the petitioner approached the respondent No.z. college and requested to return his educationar certificates a, r to return the fee paid by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 di: not return the same and demanded to pay the entire 4 years fee to receive original educational certificates of the petitioner;rr ainst the UGC guidelines. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ; pproached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4 ER DTH RE ORD (A) The r Lr No.C o8 GCH tn ls o24 o5 8.2 4 issued bv heT lan ana un lof h Ed cati r Hvdera bad ddre ed oth Re tra r of K TU I IGU, SU, PU, NTU AFAU & T VVise ra I "Sir, Sub: - TGCHE Withholding of Original Ce.r ficates of the Students - Instructions to the Un I ersities/ Colleges- Regarding. I ,/ 3 SN. J wP 12426 2025 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 orivate colleoes are withholdinq he ori receivinq 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 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 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 Universities to address/ instruct to all affiliated Private Colteges under its jurisdiction not to insast 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 instructions of the Government scrupulously and failure in this regard will be viewed seriously and stringent action will be initiated against such colleges." (B) UGC q uidelines, d ted 23.04.2 O07, in oart cular, Da ra raDh No. 2 reads as u nder: "2. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/Un iversities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the 1 SN, J wP 32426 2025 l opportunities for the candidates from exercisinc tther options of joining other institutions of their choice. Howev tr, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain e School /tnstitution, Leavino Certificate, m€! k sheet. caste ficate a d oth 1n al,' 5, In pursuance to the directions of thir; Court dated 27.70.2025, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had taken out personal notice to the res )ondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and filed proof of service of the s,t d notice upon respondents No.3 and 4 vide Memo dated 27 LO.2O2S duly enclosing the original postal track report evidenc ng the same. Though the matter is listed today i.e., on 20.11.2 )25, yet there is no representation on behalf of the responden Nos.3 and 4 when the case is called on 20.L7.2025.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in its I I jgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.p. No.21137 of 2Ol9 in c.vaishnavi vs. State of Tetangana had struck down paragrapi No.7 (iii) of G.o.t\4s.No.114, dated 05.07.2077 i.e., origirt rl certificates submitted by the petitioner/candidate shall not tc )e returned to them, till they complete their course ot study I rd appear for the University examination holding it as un-co rstitutional. A similar view was taken by this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Law ) I 5 SN, J wt, 32426 2025 College, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad v. State of Telangana vlde Judgment dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.22417 of 2018. A Similar view was also taken vlde Judgment of this Court dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.25559 of 2024 in Lakshmi Saranya v. The State of Tetangana. 7 ADivision Bench of this Cou rt vide its iudqment, d24 .2O2O in .P.No.21 t 20L9 withholdino of ori ot nal academ tc dll a lificat on certifi ates of the students observed at a rao ra oh os. 29 and 3O as und er: -

29. We are not expressing any oplnion on the rlght of the 3rd respondent-College 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 withholdi o her n la imoermissible in law.

30. Therefore, the Writ Petition rs allowed; the actlon 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 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) 6 S\, J wP t2126 2025 Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd responr( nt is forthwith directed to return the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs. Bench clearlv obs,: 'ved orroinal a ademi c alifica tion D ivisio The wit hold ino the ce ificate of the studen ts ts lm ermis i ble_ n law. 8. The High Court of Madras in K.p:r anisamy Vs. Correspondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculatio n School and Others of Madurai Bench in Wp (MD) 2tl t26 of 2OL9 decided on 17.1O.2O19 reported an MANU/Tr\ /653A/2OLg, heid that certificates of students could not be held back by educational institutions citing financial dues. In the Judqme nt of the Hiq h Cou rt of

9. onttsown Motion Vs. Directorate of Educa! on & Ors. WP (c) 66s8of2 o19 & MAP PL.30a 16.O ct1 2 19 LL.O7.2019 it was held as under:- I ,elhi in Court "8. There are methods of recovering the outstar Jing school fees with the school. ve ,een filed bv ResDo ndent No.2 upon the Da re studen ts. which as not been done so fa r. It c such suit has been instituted by Respondent School for tl e recovery of outstanding fees ( 7 SN, J wP 12426 2025

9.r n vtew of these facts . this Cou rt is of the o Dtnton h avr n rtifica cannot withheld bv the respondents." hnical dated La.L2.2012

10. In S.Muthukamatchi vs. The Director of T Edueation, Annau n iversitv in W.P.(MD) NO.14394 of the Madras Hi ohc ourt at 20L Mad rai Bench cateqori callv held that certifica s of stud ent is her/his DTODE rtv. Colleoe cannot detain the said certificates at anv rate. Even if the colleoe has a nv tm th ction f he said ertifica rs no the method bv whic the clai m can be enforced. There is no lien on the certificates of the stu d ents.

11. The Madras High Court in R.Pradeep Raj v' Commissioner, the Directorate of Technical Education reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad.9385, and this Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs. The State of Telangana in W.P.No.293O ol 2022, dated 24.05.2022 and D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare, Hyderabad in W.P.No.2LL37 ot 2019, dated 24.OL.2O2O and also the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andrha Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Management Association 8 SN, J w 32426 2025 *\ v. The State of Andhra pradesh in W.p.No,t 6O6 of 2021, dated 27.1O.2O2L directed the collell : concerned authorities to return the certificates of the students and granted liberty to the college to ctaim fee b,/ availing legal remedies in similar circumstances. L2, Based on the Division Bench Judgmenl of this Court dated 24.O1.202O passed in W.p.No.ZLL}7 of 2O19, this Court had allowed W.p.No.341g5 of 2023 ,ide its order dated 03.05.2024 granting identical relief irs granted in W.P.No.21137 oJ 2OL9.

13. This Court opines that UGC by its guidetin ts (referred to and extracted above) had directed the Universiti:;, to which the colleges like the 3'd respondent are affiliated, tr initiate action when such instances are brought to their notice rnd in spite of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the UGC, no rction is being taken, and on the other hand, students, like the petitioner, are forced to approach this Court seeking return of or i yinals and only after orders are passed by this Court, the origi rals are being returned to the students, notwithstanding the fact that the colleges like the respondent No.3, have any cla r I towards fee, the said institutions are required to initiate gr oceedings for ( I 9 SN. J wP 32426 2025 recovery of fee dues and cannot resort to withholding of certificates of the students in violation of the UGC guidelines' t4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court, dated O8.1O.2O25 passed in W.P' No'25952 ot 2(J25 and the order dated 27.LO-2025 passed in W'P' No'32404 of 2O25. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner' DISCU SSION AND CON CLUSION:

15. This Court opines that the respondents 3 and 4 cannot withholdthepetitioner,soriginaleducationalcertificates submitted by the petitioner vide Receipt of Certificates 2024- 2025, serial No.149 dated 14.08'2024 under any pretext' There isnolienonthecertificateoftheStudentssincethecertificateof the student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right ofstudentstoobtaintheirCertificatesfromoneinstitutiontojoin another institution cannot be denied by the concerned authorities merely because the tuition fee is due and if any amount is due l0 SN, J wP 32426 2025 from the petitioner towards such fees, the proper course available to the respondents is to initii) e appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovr ry before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be tdopted by the respondents to make the petitioner to pay the ltition fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on t 1e part of the respondents 3 and 4 in withholding the Transfr: Certificates of the petitioner for non-payment of tuition fee.

16. A bare perusal of the record indicat3; the specific instructions vide Lr.No.050B/TGCHE/Refund of Originats/2024 dated 05.08.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telarr lana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all tt- : Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above) indicates that specific instructions had been issued by th: Government instructing all the affiliated private colleges withir its jurisdiction not to insist on payment of tuition fee by the sl r dents who are eligible for the fee reimbursement from the stat r Government. Further as per the guidelines of UGC, colleges ca I tot withhold or refuse to return any document such as of certifi,: rtes of degree, diploma or any other award or other document c| posited with it by students for the purpose of seeking adnr ssion in such institution. Therefore duly taking into considerati )n the view of / 1I I -7 S'r-, J \vP -12426 :02i the various High Courts on the silbject issue in various Judgments, referred to and extracted above, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grar';t of reliei'as prayed for in the present writ petition.

17. Takin into consid eration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitiorier,. and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The anstructions vide Lr.No.O5O8/TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2fJ24 dated specific

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), (d) The observations made in various Judgments (referred to and extracted above), (e) The UGC Guidelines dated 23.O4.2OO7, in particular, paragraph No.2 (referred to and extracted above), t2 SN. J wP 12126 202 5 The writ petition is disposed of di'ecting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to return the original educational certificates of the petitioner, which are in ttrr : custody of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, duly I aking into consideration the observations made in various Judgments (referred to and extracted abov r), and the specific instructions vide Lr.No.OSO8/TGCHI /Refund of Originals/2O24 dated 05.08.2024 issued by tl" e Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universitie:; (referred to and extracted above), and also the UGC Guidelines (referred to and extracted above), within a p =riod of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy lf the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// $,,, ). PoNNA KRISHNA AS$i TANT REGISTRAR ,.-/ \ I SECTION OFFICER \ To, Secretariat, HYderabad

1. The Prl Secretary, Higher Education Department' The li ate of Telangana' 2. The Convenor, Telangana Council of Higher Educatior lvderabad 3 rhe Dean, iosinpallv B.Fi'i"s,l;;;;g c";ilds"' (ucc '\ rionomous) Bhaskar Naoar, Yenkapallv Villase,-'N/iEin'u'J"ino''iRdnsa Re ld"v Pi:ti9t^?99 + ifr8"Pi".I'dii"L",irii"prtti ri R Ensineering.college (l J( i' ; Autonomous) Bhaskar Nagar, Yenkaprrr"v'Viirjgl, M"inZoia m"anoat F anga Reddy District 500 075 to SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY, A-d-vocale'lPucl 5 o;tc 6 rwo ccs to Gp FOR HteiGR'eijucniroN, n'sh cn,, for the state of 7. Two CD CoPies Telangana. [OUT] 075 4& BN GJP .:','., -.'---,',#!!!r:+{ .i+ ' "ii i,s. J HIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 ORDER WP.No.32426 of 2025 {' o.. 0[tc M ,-l\ {)esr,r, TC u f,o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v6