Sabavath Sai Charan v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the Ci in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct respondents rlo 2 and no 5 to allow me to college wit 1 all originals SSC Long Memo, lntermediate Memo and Bona i Vl to X, Community date of Birth Certificate B.Tech (l Provisional Certificate and transfer certificate pending dispo s Petition, as otherwise. the Petitioner will be put to severe loss cumstances stated may be pleased to rut pressing for the le, Study certificate rnsolidated memo, rl of the above Writ and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NIMMALWAR PRAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR HIGHER t: )UCATION The Court made the following: ORDER ('l HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.38123 OF 2025 DATED: 16.12.2025 Between: Sri Sabavath Sai Charan ...Petitioner And The State of Telangana and Others Respondents o RDER: Heard Sri Nimmalwar praveen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assastant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The oetitioner a Doroached the Court seekino Draver 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 all originals, SSC Long Memo, Intermediate Memo and Bonafide, Study certificate VI to X, Community, date of Birth Certificate, B.Tech Consolidate memo, provisiona I Certificate and transfer certificate as being void arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 2 14, 1g and 265 of the Constitution of Inrl a and to consequently direct the respondent to i;sue the transfer certificate any action taken pursut r t thereto and pass such further or other orders as tlr s Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circunr ;tances of the case. (ii) and violative of articles 14, 19,21 and ' 65 of the Constitution of India and/or pass"' 3 The ca se of the peti t in brie f as Der vit filed t DE itioner tn E av rme su DOrtofthep resent t Detitto n is as unt! ::r: The pretitioner studied the course of I lE in the 6th respondent college from the year 2020 lo ''l \24 under fee reimbursement program and petitioner comll eted the said course in due time. ItisflrtherthecaSeofthepetitionerth-."thepetitioner secured LLB seat in 5th respondent college and f rr joining in the said course, the 5th respondent directed the peti ioner to submit the requisite educational certificates of the petit oner within the prescribed time period. However, the 6th respc r dent ref used to handover the petitioner his original certificates ( n the ground of non-payment of fee reimbursement by the sf i te government' 3 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED TH E RECORD (A) The letter Lr.No.O5O8/ TGCHE/ f Ori nal 4 2 b the Telanoa na Counci! of Hioher Ed ucatio n, Hvdera bad add ressed to the Reqistrars of OU. KU, TU. GU- S U PU,

08.2 2 JNTU, ]NAFAU&T MVV is e tracte hereu nd er: "Sir, Sub:- TGCHE Withholding of Original Certificates oF the Students - Instructions to the Universities/ Colleges- Rega rding. 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 certaln oflv te colleoes are withhol d inq h recetv inq fee reimbu rsement from the Govern ent. ertifi on h e s 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 2019, 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. l 4 Therefore, I am by direction 'equest the Universities to address/ instruct to all affi iated Private Colleges under its jurisdiction not to insi:; payment of Tuition Fee from the students who are el gible for fee reimbursement and not to deny isst ing original certificates on the pretext of not r':ceiving fee reimbursement from the Government. It is rot a healthy practice. Such colleges may be blacklisted 'rnd shall not be considered for free reimbursement, w liich will also affects affiliation of such colleges. The Colleges shall be directed to follow the inst-uctions of the Government scrupulously and failure in this egard will be viewed seriously and stringent action will be I itiated against such colleges. " (B) UGC quide nes. dated 23.O4.2 oo7. _ n Darticular, paraqra h No.2 reads as under: the vir: I "2. The Commission is of Institutions/Universities, by way of retaining tt- 3 certificate in original, force retention of admitted students v hich limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising , ther options of joining other institutions of their choice. Howevr r, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universitier; to retain the School/Inst itution. Leavino Ce ificate. ma r( sheet, caste certif r documents in ori o ina l. te and othe In pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 5. 10.t2.2O25, the learned counsel appearing on behalF of the petitioner harl taken out personal notice to the rt: ;pondent No.6 herein and filed proof of service of the sail notice upon respondent No.6 vrde Memo dated 70.12.2025 du' enclosing the original postal track report evidencing the sarr r . Though the ) ) ) matter is listed today i.e., on t6.72.2025, yet there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.6 when the case is called on 16.12.2025.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in its ludgment dated

24.01.2020 passed in W.P. No.21137 of 2019 in D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana had struck down paragraph No.7 (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.20t7 i.e., original certificates submitted by the petitioner/candidate shall not to be returned to ihem, 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 College, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad v. State of TLlangana vrde Judgment dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.p.No.22417 of 201a. A Similar view was also taken vrde Judgment of this Court dated 29.t0.2024 passed in W.P.No.25559 of 2024 in Lakshmi Saranya v. The State of Telangana.

7. A Divisi n Bench of this Court vide its i dqment, o1.2 2 .P.No.211 7 withholdin q of oriqinal academic oualification certaficates dealin wl f of the tudents obse ed at oarao raoh Nos. 29 and30as under:- l 6

29. We are not expressing any opinion on the r t ht of the 3rd respondent-College to recover amounts towa-, s the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 lal rs from the petitioner / her parent, but we hold that will rholdinq her oualificatio orioinal i'icates, cer'l I academ ic rm issib 30 Therefore, the writ Petilion is allowed; thr: action of the 3rd reslondent-College in not returning the orlg nal academtc qualification certificates of the petitioner who h:Lr discontinued study of I\4.8.8.S. I year course in the said colle r e, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 arrr 300-A of the Constitution of India; Para no.7(iii) of G.O.14S,lJ r'114, Health, Ivledical and Family Welfare (C.1) Department, lr:.05.07.2017 is declared to be ultra vires the powers rf the State Government under the Telangana Educatiorrr i Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of : rpitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd rlrsDondent is urn the orto r rI rrl academic forthwith directed tor qu alif ication certificates of the Det ition€ ! to her. No The D ivision Bench verv clearlv obs, I "ved that with holdino the oriqin I academ ralification certificates of th e students is lmoermtss ible _rn law. rc cll

8. The High Court of Madras in K.Pir ianisamy Vs' Correspondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculatior r School and Others of Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 2( 726 ol 2OL9 decided on 17.1O.2O19 reported in MANU/Tl'l/6538/2OL9, ) 7 held that certificates of students could not be held back by educational institutions citing financial dues.

9. Int he Judo ent of t e Hioh ourt of elhi in ou rt on its own Motion Vs. D !rectorate of Educa tion & Ors. in wP (c) 66s of 2019 & CM APPL.3O 816. O of 2019, d ated LL.O7 .20L9, itwas held as under:- .E o 2rt of recoverin ven a suit g the outs could ha "8. There are metho fees with the school esnonde ntN stud nts. wh ic h has not been done so far. No such su it has been instituted by Respondent School for the recovery of outstanding fees. 9. o tnt the School Leavinq Certificates cann tbe tanding s ve been are nts of hese f f n

10. rn S.Muth uk matchi vs. The Directo r of Tech nical Educ atio n, Anna Unive rsitv in w.P.(MD) NO.1439 4of 2()L2 dated 1 8.12.20 2, the Madras Hiqh Court at Mad rai Bench cateoorica llv held that certificates of stud nt is her/ his orooe rtv. Colle e cannot detain the said certi rcates at anv rate. Even f the colleoe has anv handov r the said certificates to the students s not the method bv whic the cla imcanbee nforced. There is no lien on he certifi cates of the students the refu Ito moneta rv claim. I 8 ,:i

11. The Madras High Court in R.Prac eep Raj v. Commissioner, the Directorate of Technic'rl Education reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad.9385, anrl this Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs. The State of 'elangana in W.P.No.293O ot 2022, dated 24.06.2022 arll D.Vaishnavi vs, State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfarr:, Hyderabad in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.OL.202ll and also the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravi ti in Andrha Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Manageme t rt Association v. The State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.9 606 of 2021, dated 27 "LO.2O2I directed the collecl, t concerned authorities to return the certificates of the students and granted liberty to the college to claim fee b1r availing legal remedies in similar circumstances. L2, Based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 24.O1.2020 passed in W.P.No.2Lt37 of 2019, this Court had ailowed W.P.No.34185 of 2023 'ride its order dated O3.06.2024 granting identical relief ls granted tn W.P.No.21137 ot 2OL9. o

13. This Court opines that UGC by its guidelines (referred to and extracted above) had directed the Universities, to which the colleges like the 6th respondent are affiliated, to initiate action when such instances are brought to their notice and in spite of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the UGC, no action is being taken, and on the other hand, siudents, 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.6, 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' L4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarety covered by the order of this Court, dated O8.1O.2O25 passed in W.P. No'25952 ot 2025 and the order dated 27.LO.2O25 passed in W'P' No'324O4 ot 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' l0 I CU SI N NDC USION

15. This Court opines that the responde I No.6 cannot withhold the petitioner's originar educatic r ar certificates submitted by the petitioner under any pretext. -here is no rien on the certificate of the students since the ce rtificate of the student is his/her property. This court opines lrat the right of students to obtain their Certificates from one ir: titution to join another institution cannot be denied by the conce r red authorities merely because the tuition fee is due and if an), amount is due from the petitioner towards such fees, the )roper course available to the respondents is to initia i r appropriate proceedings against ihe petitioner for recove ry before the competent C,lurt and coercive tactics cannot be r lopted by the respondents to make the petitioner to pay the rl tion fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on t 1 I part of the respondent fJo.6 in withholding all originals i.e ., SSC Long Memo, Interntediate Memo and Bonafide, Study ce rtificate VI to X, Community, date of Birth Certificate, B.Tec t Consolidate memo, Provisional Certifica te and transfer certi icate of the petitioner for non-payment of tuition fee. f I l I l l l l1

16. A bare perusal of the record indicates the specific instructions vide 1r.No.0508/TGCHE/Refund of Originalsl2024 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) 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 State Government. Further as per the guidelines of UGC, colleges cannot withhold or refuse to return any document such as of certificates of degree, diploma or any other award or other document deposited with it by students for the purpose of seeking admission in such instituiion. Therefore duly taking into consideration the view of the various High Courts on the subiect 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.

17. Takinq into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, ) l2 (b) The submissions of the lear appearing on behalf of the petitioner, an( Assistant Government pteader for Higlr appearing on behalf of the respondents, ned counsel the lea rned )r Education (c) The specific instructi: Lr.No.O5O8/TGCHE/Refund of Originals,/ 05.08.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telangl Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed Registrars of na Council of to all the Universities (referred to a r,rd extracted 2024 dated above), (d) rhe observations made in variorr.; Judgments (referred to and extracted above), (e) The UGC Guidelines dated 23.D4.2OO7, in particular, paragraph No.2 (referred to ar d extr.acted above), The writ petition is disposed of cl recting the respondent No.6 to return the originar educationar certificates i.e., SSC Long Memo, Intermediatr: Memo and Bonafide, Study certificate VI to X, Commur ity, date of Birth Certificate, B.Tech Consolidate memo, provisional Certificate and transfer certificate of the petit:r oner, which are in the custody of the respondent No.6, dull taking into r Y l3 consideration the observations made in various Judgments (referred to and extracted above), and the specific anstructions vide Lr,No.O5O8/TGCHE/Refund of Originals,/2O24 dated 05.O9.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Councit of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above), and also the UGC Guidelines (refer,.ed to and extracted above) forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions. if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. U.SUDHA ISTANT REGISTRAR* SECTION OFFICER \ .",

1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Depa Hyderabad, State of Telangana. ent Secretariat Buildings,

2. The Chairman, Telangana Counsel for Higher Education, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3. The Vice Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad. 4. The Convenor, Telangana Law Common Entrance Test 20225 (TG- LAWCET-2025), Osmania University, Hyderabad Telangana

5. The Principal, Hyderabad Law College, Uppal Hyderabad, Telangana' 500039 6. The Principal, Sri lndu College Engineering-and Techn^olo^g^y- Sheriguda - vitrige tbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy ' Telangana 500029

7. One CC to SRI NIMMALWAR PRAVEEN, Advocate [OPUC] S.TwoCCstoGPFoRHIGHEREDUCATIoN'HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I BSR o CD Copies a. HIGH COURT DATED: 1611212025 I I ORDER WP.No.38123 of 2025 lHE S TA ( ( ' 1 / 0[[ t!15 t. . S.Arr * ,!5.-* I ..: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I I i I : i : i i I I I I i I I I I a : 1 I I I I I