The High Court · 2025

Petition Urrder Section 151 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 respondent no. 3 to issue the No -Due certificate to the petitioner without any conditions, pendirrg disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.KEERTHI REODY Counsel for the Respondent No.l : AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTU Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI T.TARUN G.REDOY The Court mader the following ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.36345 OF 2025 DATED: 22.12.2025 Between: Singarapu Sharath And The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary Depaftment of Higher Education, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad and 2 others ....Petitioner . ... Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri B. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner, Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Sri T. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondents. 2 The oetitioner aooroached theCourt seekino oraveI asu der: 2 of Mandamus, in withholding "...to issue a Writ, order, or direction, particularly in the natLrre of a Writ declaring the action of Respondent No.3 the petitioner's original edur:ational certificates and demanding full payment of the enti-e course fee for two years i.e. 2OL7 to 2019, during whi<:h the petitioner discontinued the. cotrse, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the JNTUH Circular dated 07-03-2024, AICIE Regulations, and applicable law and consequently direct the Respondent No..3 to immediately return the petitioners original certificates, including the Original SSC Long Memo, Original Int€:rmediate Short Memo, Original Transfer Certificate, Orir;inal Bona fide Certificate, and any other relevant documents without any conditions and pass...,,. 3 e case of the petitioner tn brief as a e d e su DDOTI: of thCD resent writ ition ts sunder: The petitioner got admission into Bachelor of Technology (Electricar and Erectronics engineering) program for the academic years 2015-2019 at Holy Mary Institute of Technotogy and Science (HITS) through EAMCET. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20,9t10/- towards fee on 24.10.2016. At the time of admission, the respondent No.3 college collected original SCC (Long Memo), original Intermediate (Short Memo), original T.C. (Interm'-'diate) and originar bona fide certificate. The petitioner 3 - discontinued his studies due to health issues. Respondent No.3 refused to return the original certificates of the petitioner for non-payment of entire course fee for two years i.e. 2017 to

2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSEDTHE RECORD (A) The letter Lr.N o o5 oal TGCHE Refund of Orioinals/2024, dated O5.O8.2024 issued bv the Telanoana Council of Hioher Education, Hvderabad addressed to the Reqistrars of OU. KU. TU, MGU, SU, PU, JNTU, JNAFAU & TMW is extracted hereunder: "Sir, Sub:- TGCHE Withholding of Original Certificates of the Students - Instructions to the Universities/ Colleges- 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 the orioinal certaficates of students on the oretext of not receivino 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 purposes. 4 :il Further, in terms of UGC (Grievance Redressal of st-u!9n!s) Regulations 2018, the iolleges are barred from withholding or refusing to return ao"urnent an the forrm of certaficates of degree, diploma or any ottrer award or other do_cument deposited wiitr it by a students for the pu.'poses of seeking admission in such institution. "n-y Therefore, I am by directlon request the Uniiversities to address/ instruct to att affiiited private Colleges_ und_er its jurisdiction not to insfi fayment of Tuition Fee from the students who are for fee reirmbursement and not to deny iss"-ng original certificates on the pretext of hot rece-iving - reimbursement from the Government. It is not . healthy practace. Such c_olleges may be blacklisted iia snall not oe constdered for free reimbursement, which witt also affects affiliation of such colleges. .' ---- Tht: colleges sharr be directed to fofiow the instructions of the Go',/ernment scrupulously and failure in thii regard will be viewed seriously and stringent action will be initi-ated against su<:h colleges. " "i,siUl" paraqraph No.2 reads as under: "2. The Commission is of the view that the In:;titutions/Universities, 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 wourd not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the s certificate and other documents in orioinat.,, s

5. Ttre Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 24.0t.2,J2O passed in W.p. No.21137 of 2019 in D.V aash avi \ ) vs. state of Telanqana had struck down paragraph No.7 (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017 i.€., original certificates submitted by the petitioner/candidate shall not to be returned to them, till they complete their course of study and appear for the University examination holding it as un-constitutional. A similar view was taken by this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Law Colleqe, NTR Naoar, Hvde bad v. State of T lanoana vide Judgment dated 09.12.2022 passed in W,P. No.224L7 of 2018. A similar view was also taken vlde Judgment of this Court dated 29.L0.2024 passed in W.P.No.25559 of 2024 in Lakshmi Saranva v. The S ate of Telanoana. 6 A Division nch of this Court vide its Judoment, dated 24. O1.2O2O in W.P.No 21a37 of 2O19 de lino with withholdinq of orioinal academic qualification certificates of the students observed at oaraoraoh Nos. 29 and 3O as under:- "29. We are not expressing any opinion on the right 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 that withholdino her orioinal asademic oualification certificates, is impermissible in law. .G 6 3O. Therefore, the Writ petition is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the original academic quarification certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued stucly of M.B.B.S. I year course in the said college, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300_4 of the Constitution of India; para no.7(iii) of G.O.MS.No.114, Health, Meclical and Family Welfare (C.1) Department, dt.05.07.2017 is rJs6l3196 to be ultra vires the powers of the State under the Telangana Educational Institutions Gov ernment (Regulation of Admissions and prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd resoondent is h sctt, B Matri vidva vi Others of Mad rai Bench tn

7. The High Court of Madras in K. patanisamv Vs. CorresDo nden ulationSc ool P(MD)2 726 ol 2 19 declgled on 17.1O.2019 reoorted in MANU/TN/6538/2O19, held that certificates of students coutd not be held back by educational anstitutions citing financial dues. 8 o n n h u Di f d o 7 WP (C) 665a of 2O19 & CM APPL.3O815.O of 2019. dated

11.O7.2019, it was held as under:- "8. There are methods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the school. Even a suit coul have been filed bv Resoondent No.2 uoon the oarents of the students, which has not been done so far. No such suit has been instituted by Respondent School foi the recovery of outstanding fees.

9. In view of t ese facts- this Court is the ooinion that the School Leavino Certaficates cannot be withheld bv the resoondents." . The M h 9 Education, Anna Universitv in W.P.(MD) NO.14394 of 2012, dated 1b.12.2012. the Madras Haoh court at Madurai Bench cateooricallv held that certificates of fT chni student is her/his orooertv. Colleqe cannot detain the said certaficates at anv rate. Even if the colleoe has anv monetarv claim, the refusal to handover the saad tes to the stu ents is not th method bv w ich the certifi claim n be enfo There is no I en on the ce ificates of the dents.

10. The Madras High Court in R. Pradeeo Rai v. Commissioner, the Directorate of Technica! Education reported in 2O19 SCC OnLine Mad.9385, and this Court in ana rn Kaluri Shiva Sai Te a vs- The te of Tel F- 8 f2 a 2 o1

6.2 .2L1' w.P No. and D.Vaishnavi vs.._--,S!ale of Telanqana, represented bv ats princapal Seclgtarv Health Medical and Familv Welfare, Hvderabad in W. and also the High Court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravati in Andrha Pra esh Private U naided Schools Manaqeme nt Association v. I he State of And ra Prad esh in .P.l{o.9 O6of2ozt, dated 27.LO.2O21 directed the college concerned authorities to return the certificates of the students 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 2:4.O1.2O2O passed in W.p.No.Zttg7 of 2019, this Court had allowed W.p.No.34lgS of 2O23 vide its order dated 03.O6.2O24 granting identical relief as granted in W.P.No.21137 of 2O1-9.

12. Tl-is Court opines that UGC by its guidelines (referred to and extracted above) had directed the Universities, to which the colleges like the respondent No.3 are affiliated, to initiate action when such instances are brought to their notice and in spite of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the UGC, ho action is being '| I i taken, and on the other hand, students, like the petitioner, are forced to approach this Court seeking return of originals and only after orders are passed by this Court, the originals are being returned to the students, notwithstanding the fact that the colleges like the respondent No.3, have any claim towards fee, the said institutions are required to initiate proceedings for recovery of fee dues and cannot resort to withholding of all certificates of the students in violation of the UGC guidelines.

13. The tearned 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 08.1O.2025 passed in W.P. No.25952 ot 2025 and the order dated 27.LO.2O25 passed in W.P. No.324O4 ol 2025. The tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner. DI USSION AND CONCLUS ON: L4. The learned counse! aooearinq on behalf of the oetitioner maintv outs forth the followinq submissions: IO (i) The respondent No.3 had collected the original certificatos/documents of the petitioner i.e. (i) original SSC Certificate (Long Memo), (ii) original Intermediate Certificate (Short Memo), (iii) original Transfer Certificate (Intermediate) and (iv) original Bona fr?e certificate and other relevant documerrts pertaining to the petitioner herein and in spite of repeated representations made to the respondent No.3 college, the sanre are not being returned to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

15. The learned Assistant Government aDDeari nq on behalf the resoond nts mainlv outs forth Pleader the followino submissions (i) The petitioner left the respondent No.3 college in the year 2Ot7 and thereafter the petitioner had not approached the responclent No.3 college seeking the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition and therefore, no Writ of Mandarnus lies against the respondents as alleged by the petitioner.herein since there is no inaction on the part of the respondents. (ii) Upon submission of a representation by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 afresh putting forth the grievance of the petitioner as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition the same would be considered in accordance to law by the respondent No.3 *itnin u reasonable period.

16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. L7. This Court opines that the respondent No.3 cannot withhold the petitioner's original educational certificates submitted by the petitioner under any pretext. There is no lien on the 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 petitioner towards such fees, the proper course available to the respondents is to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery before the t2 competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the respondents to make the petitioner to pay the tuition fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on the part of the respond€nt No.3 in withholding all originals i.e., SSC Long Memo, Intermediate Memo, original TC and Bona fide of the petitioner for non-payment of tuition fee.

18. A bare perusal of the record indicates that specific instructir>ns vide Lr.No.050B/TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated 01i.08.2024 had been issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above), a bare perusal of the same indicates that specific instructions had been isr;ued by the Government instructing all the affiliated Private t:olleges within its jurisdiction not to insist on payment oF tuition fee by the students who are eligible for the fee reimbursement from the State Government. Further as per the guidelines of UGC, colleges cannot withhold or refuse to return any do<:ument such as of certificates of degree, diploma or any other a'arard or other document deposited with it by students for the purtose of seeking admission in such institution. l3

19. Therefore, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief in the present writ petition.

20. Takinq into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions of the tearned counsel petitioner, and the learned appearing on behalf of the Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The specific instructions vide Lr. No. O5O8/ TGCHE/Refund of Originalsl2O24 dated 05.O8.2O24 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of H-gher Education, Hyderabad addressed to atl the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above), (d) The observations made in various Judgments (refered to and extracted above), (e) The UGC Guidelines dated 23.O4.2OO7, in particutar, paragraph No.2 (referred to and extracted above), (f) The light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at Para Nos.14 to 18 of the present order, t4 Thr: writ petition is allowed. The petitaoner is directed to make a detailed written representation to the respondent No.3 putting forth all the grievances as put forth in the present writ petition seeking return of (i) original SSC (Long Memo), (ii) original Intermediate Certificate (Short Memo), (iii) original Transfer Certificate (Intermediate) and (iv) original Bona fide Certificate and other rr:levant documents of the petationer herein which are in the custody of the respondent No.3, within one (1) week fiom the date of receipt of a copy of the order and upon receipt of the same, the respondent No.3 as directed to consider the same in accordance to taw, duly taking into consideration the observations in the Division Bench Judgment of this Court and the observations in the Judgments ofother High Courts (referred to and extracted above), and pass appropriate orders in accordance to !aw, within a period of one (1) week thereafter and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. I I closed. l5 The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand //TRUE COPY// SD/. B.REKHA RANI SISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana' ( JNTUH), Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500085 Depa rtment of Higher Education Secretariat Bui 2. The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technolog 3. The Principal, Holy Mary lnstitute of Technology and Science, Keesara 4. Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Bogaram Village, Ghatkesar Road, Kondapur, Telangana 501303. University Hyderabad Principal Secretary p !s aifabad Hyderabad. .Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One cC to SRt. B KEERTHI REDDY Advocate [oPUc] 6. One CCto SRI T.TARUN G.REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 7. One CC to SRI PRABHAKAR PERI, SC FOR JNTU, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Two CD Copies SA TKS I l \ C.C.TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2211212025 o o 5TATE .r\..UA,.,\ '€,'. \ $tt [Qs * ORDER WP.No.36345 of 2025 * S ALLOWING THE W.P WTHOU COSTS. I g 4 ').L \