Eslavath Priyanka Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA

¶6

Between

¶7

Eslavath_P!'ryar.r.ka, D/o. Eslavath Jinja, Age. 1T years, occ. Student,Minor Bep.9y^Eslav_ath -Jinja,..Father^{qs Natural Guardian, 'slo.rsliviin} Si;;an, lge.42years,occ.Agriculturist _R/o.H.No.^{6-03, Thummalakunta} tharida; Rajanaik Thanda, Jalalpuram, Thirumalagiri, Suryapet, Telan&il.^-

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Hyderab ad-500 022.

¶11

The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Government of Telangana, Nampally, rabad-500 001

¶12

The Jawaharlal Nehru Tech nological University (JNTUH), - 500 085.

¶13

The Global Cqfe.ge of Pharmacy (Affitiate Moinabad ce Statio n, Chilkoor, Ranga nedOi District,^to Telangana-s01^{JNTUH),Beside} 504.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in withholding the Petitioner's original certificates and demanding 4 years tuitioh fees as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articlds 14,21 and 300-4, and contrary to UGC/AICTE/ TSCHE norms

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2028

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor.rrt may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith return all the Petitioner's Original educational certificates including the following. (a) Secondary Education (1gth class)-SSC Certificate, lVlarks Memo, Transfer Certificate, and Bonafide Certificate; (b) Upper Primary/ High School (sth - l0thclass) Bonafide and Conduct Certificate studied lnter B.P.c.; (c) lntermediate (11th -12th class) - marks memo and (d) Equivalency certificate submitted at the time of admission

¶18

counsel for the Petitioner: sRr. VLADTMEER KHATOON

¶19

counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: Gp FoR HIGHER EDUcATtoN counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: sRl pERl PRABHAKAR,

¶20

S.C. FOR JNTUH

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

i i iI I i I I I : ! j i :

¶23

'*

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶25

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

DATE: O1.12.2O25

Between :

Eslavath priyanka

A n d

petitioner

The State of Tetangana, Medical Health & Fimily Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & two others

¶32

Respondents

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

-^Heard M r s vtadimeer Khatoon, tearned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner, rearned Assistant Government pteader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2, and sri peri prabhakar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶35

¶36

nrayer as under:

¶37

""'to issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ declaring the action of Responount Nd.t i; *iinr,otoing the Petitioner's originat certificate and demanoing 4 years tuition fees as iilegar, arbitrary, ;il-;;rative of Artictes t4, 2L and^- jOo_R, jnO ioniru.v to

¶38

2

¶39

SN, J wP 35106 2025

¶40

UGC/AICTE/TSCHE norms and to^pass such other order. . . "

¶41

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the^petitioner was allotted a seat in Global College of Pharmacy (Affiliated to JNTUH), Chilkoor, Ranga Reddy District under ST reservation quota and petitioner paid only the admission fee on 22.L0.2025 and obtained Admission No.13129 by depositing original educational certificates. As per the Government Policy, the petitioner was eligible for tuition fee Reimbursement/Scholarship. The petitioner further submits that due to serious health issues, the petitioner is unable to continue further studies at Global College of Pharmacy.

¶42

It is further the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner requested to return the original educational certificates i.e,, SSC Certificate, Marks Memo, Transfer Cedificate and Bonafide Certificate, Upper Primary/High School Bonafide and Conduct Certificate, Intermediate Marks Memo etc., the respondent authorities refused to release the original certificates and further demanded to pay the entire four years tuition fee. The petitioner made a representation through Email dated 11.11.2025 and also through a written representation, but the same were not received and the respondents even refused to acknowledge the

\ \

3

SN, J wP 35106 2025

same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶47

4 (A) The I vide Lr.No.O 08/TGCHE/

¶48

a a a

¶49

"Sir,

¶50

Sub: - TGCHE Withholding of Original Certificates of the Students - Instructions to the U niversities/CollegesReg a rd in g.

¶51

This office Lr. No. TGCHE/Fee Reimbursement /2024,^{dt.23.O2.2O24}

¶52

While referring to the subject and reference cited that in continuation of earlier letter, it has come to the notice of the Government that

¶53

Withholding of original certificates will have significant implicataons for the students, especially when they need to present these documents to join for higher education, applying or joining forjobs and other purposes.

¶54

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 at by a students for the purposes of seeking admission in such institution.

¶55

Therefore, I am by direction request the Universities to address/ instruct to al! affiliated Private Colleges under

i

4

SN, J wP 35106 2025

its^jurisdiction not to insist payment of Tuition Fee from the students who are eligible for fee reimbursement and not to deny issuing original certificates on the not receiving fee reimbursement from the Government. It is not a healthy practice. Such colleges may be blacklisted and shall not be conside for free reimbursement, which will also affects affiliation of such colleges.

¶60

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 igainst such colleges. "

¶61

(B) UGC quidelines. dated 23.O4.2OO7, in oarticutar,

¶62

"2. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students rnrhich limits 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

¶63

In compliance to the directions of this Court dated 19.LL.2O25 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner submits that personal nbtice had been issued upon the 4th respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due and filed proof of service of notice upon the respondent No.4 into the Registry vide Memo dated O1.12.2025, USR No.137452, however there is no representataon on behalf of the 4th respondent when the case is called.

¶64

5

¶65

SN, J wP 15106 2025

¶66

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 24.OL.2020 passed in W.P. No.2i137 ot z0tg in D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana had struck down paragraph No.7 (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2077 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 College, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad v. State of Telangana^yide ludgment dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.224l7 of 2018. A Similar view was also taken vde Judgment of this Court dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.25559 of 2024 in Lakshmi Saranya v. The State of Telangana.

¶67

7

¶68

"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,

6

SN, J \w_35t06_2025

1

imoermissible in law.

¶73

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-coilege in not returning the originat academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued study of M.B.B.s. I year cours;e in the said college, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and vioiative of Articte 14 and 300-4 of the constitution of India; para no.7(iii) of G'o.MS.No.114, Hearth, Medicar and Famiry werfare (c.1) Department, dt.05.07.20L7 is decrared to be urtra vires the powers of the state Government under tne Terangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 ,rf 19g3); and the 3rd respondent is forthwith directed to retur.n the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs. "

¶74

ll

lf

\ \

7

SN. J wP 35106 2025

V

,'8. There are methods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the^{school. Even a suit could have been filed bv} No such suit has been instituted bY^Res pondent School for the recoVery of outstanding^fees. 9.

¶82

¶83

certificates of the students.

¶84

The^Madras High^{Court inR.Pradeep Rai v.} Commissioner, the Directorate^{ofTechnicalEducation} reported^{in 2O19} SCC OnLine^{Mad.9385,and this Court in}

8

SN, J wP 35106 2025

0

Kaluri Shiva Sai Teia^{vs. The State of Telangana in} w.P.No.293O ol 202a^{dated 24.06.2022 and D.vaishnavi} vs. state of Telangana,^{representedby itsPrinicipal} Secretary Health Medicat^{and FamilyWelfare, Hydeabad in} w.P.No.21t37 ol 2O!9,^{dated 24.o1.2O2O and also the High} Court of Andhra Pradesh at^{Amaravati in AndrhaPradesh} Private Unaided Schoots^{Management Associationv. The} State of Andhra Pradesh^{in W.P.No.95O6of 2O2! dated} 27,tO.2O21. directed the^{concerned collegeauthorities to} return the certificates and^{granted liberty to the collegeto} claim fee by availing legal^{remedies insimilar} circumstances.

¶89

L2. Based on the Division^{Bench Judgmentof this Court} dated 24.o1.2O2O^passed in^{w.P.No.zLL37 of 2O19, this} Court had allowed W.P.No.34185 ol^{2023 vide its order} dated Q,3.06.2Q.24^{granting identical relief as grantedin} W.P.No.2tl37 of 2O19.

¶90

This Court opines that UGC by its^{guidelines(referredto} and extracted above) had^{directed the Universitir:s,to which the} colleges like the 3rd respondent are affiliated, tc^{initiateaction} when such instances are brought to their notice and in spite of

¶91

9

¶92

SN, J wP_35106 2025

¶93

the aforesaid^guidelines issued by the UGC, no action is being taken, and on the othe:' 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 certificates of the students in violation of the UGC guidelines.

¶94

!4, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.O1.2O2O passed in W.P.No.21t37 of 2OL9 and the order dated 27.1O.2O25 passed in W.P.No.32404 of 2fl25. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents'does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶95

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

¶96

This Court opines that the 4th respondent cannot withhold the petitioner's original certificates such as Secondary Education (10tn class)-SSC Certificate, Marks Memo, Transfer Certificate and

¶97

l0

¶98

SN, I wP 35106 2025

¶99

t \

¶100

Bonafide Certificate, Upper Primary/High School (5th - 10th class) Bonafide and Conduct Certificate studied Inter Bi.p.C., Intermediate (11tn - 12th class) Marks Memo and Equivalent Certificate, 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 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 compet(:nt Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the 4th respondent to make the petitioner to pay the tuition fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on the part of the 4th respondent in withholding the original Certificates of the petitioner for non-payment of tuition fee.

¶101

A bare perusal of the record indicates the specific instructions vide Lr.No.05O8/TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated 05.08.2024 had been issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above) instructing all the affiliated private Colleges within its jurisdiction

¶102

1l

¶103

SN, J wP 35106 2025

¶104

not to insist on^{paymentof tuition fee by the studentswho are} eligibte for the^{fee reimbursementfrom the StateGovernment'} Further as^per the^{guidelinesof UGC, colleges cannotwithhold or} refuse to return^{any document such as of certificates of degree,} diploma or any other^{awai-d or other document deposited 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 invarious} Judgments, referred^{to and extracted above, this Court opines} that petitioner is^{entitled for grant of relief, as prayedfor, in the} present writ Petition.

¶105

Takino into consideration^:

¶106

(a) The aforesaid facts and^{circumstancesof the} case,

¶107

(b) The submissions made^{by the learned counsel} appearing on^{behalf of the petitioner and the learned} counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondents,}

¶108

(c)ThespecificinstructionsvideLr.No.o5oS/ TGCHE/Refund of^{Originalsl2O24 dated O5.O8.2O24issued} by the Secretary,^{Telangana Councilof HigherEducation,} Hyderabad addressed^{to all the Registrarsof Universities} (referred to and extracted^above),

¶109

t2

¶110

SN. J wP t5 r06_2025

¶111

(d) The observations^{on the subject issue pertaining} to withholding^{of original certificatesof the students' by} the Authorities^{concerned in the Judgmentsof the various} High Courts^{(referredto and extracted above)'}

¶112

(e) The UGC^{guidelines,dated 23'04'2OO7'}

¶113

The Writ Petition^{is altowed as prayed for'The} respondents^{are directedtoforthwith return al! original} certificates^{of the petitioner i'e', Secondary Education (1oth} class)-SSC^{Certificate, Marks Memo,Transfer Certificate} and Bonafide^{certificate,Upper Primary/High school(Sth -} l0th class) Bonafide^{and ConductCertificatestudied Inter} Bi.P.c., Intermediate^(11th -^{12th ctass) Marks Memoand} Equivalent^{Certificate submitted by the petitioner at the} time of admission^{into the 4th respondentherein by duly} taking into^{considerationthe obse} rvations in^{the various} judgments (referred to^{and extracted above) and the} specific instructions^{vide Lr'No'O5O8/TGCHE/Refundof} Origanals/2024^{datedO5.O8.2O24issuedby the Secretary'} of Higher^{Education,HYderabad} Telangana^Council addressed to^{all the} Registrars of^{Universities(referred to} and extracted above),^{and also the UGC guidelines' dated} 23.O4.2OO7^{(referred to and extracted above)'within a}