Allowed

Mohammed Sameena v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2025WP/608/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Twenty-one students who completed the two-year MSIT programme at JNTU Hyderabad were denied degree certificates due to a fee dispute between the University and consortium institutions. The High Court held the withholding illegal, as dues did not arise from any student default, and directed issuance of certificates within two weeks with exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to respondents 2 and 3 to issue MSIT degree certificates to petitioners within two weeks; Rs.50,000 costs payable by respondent No.3 to petitioners collectively.

Mohammed Sameena Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T,VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:608 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Sameena, Wo Shaik Muheeb, D/o Mohammed Sadiq Aged about 26 years, Occ Private Employee Ryo Jaber Bin Abdullah St-Al Yarmook-Halwan, Shariah.

¶9

Permanent resident H.No.10-3-68/fu5111611, Flat No.503, Classic Colony, Humayun Nagar, Azizia Masjid Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, Telangana^- 500028, Mobile no 944 15O 8014 Rep. by her GPA Holder Sadiq Mohammed

¶10

Kamati Santosh Varun, S/o Karnati Venu, Aged about 27^yearc, Occ Private Employee Plot No 103, Road no 9, Sri Krishna Nagar, Near beerappa temple, Gurramguda, Nadergul, KV Rangareddy, Telangana- 501510.

¶11

Mukkumalla Vinod Kumar Reddy, S/o M. Sreenivasula Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ Private Employee D. No 3/76, Bankachinnayapalli, Maduru, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh - 516362.

¶12

Yrilaya Gopal Koduru, S/o Narasimha Rao Koduru Aged about 28^years, Occ Private Employee 6-133, Gudipudi^post, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, :

¶13

Andhra Pradesh, Bharath 522403.

¶14

Bojja Sai Tejaswi, D/o Bojja Mallikharjuna Rao, Aged about 27^years, Occ PriVate Employee Flat no 101, Sri Venkateswara Paradise Apartment, Raghuram Nagar, Near Ayyappa Swami Temple, Sattenapalli, Saftenapalli, Palnadu District, A. P-522403.

¶15

Vedantham Ramasesha Alekhya, D/o Vedantam S R Murthy, Aged about²⁷ years, Occ Private Employee Plot no 574lA, Sai Anurag colony, Bachupally, Hyderabad, TS - 500090.

¶16

Ramidi Sowmya, D/o Ramidi Vamsi Mohan, Aged about 27^years, Occ Private Employee Flat no 508, Vrushabadri Towers, BJP office Road, Kukatpally, Medchal -Malkajgiri, Telangana - 500072,

¶17

B. Naini Sai Hindu, D/o Naini Veerender Reddy, Aged aboul 27^years, Occ Private Employee Flat no 401 , Dr Bhushan Apartment, Near seven^hills hospital, Hanumakonda, Warangal District, Telangana^-505001.

¶18

Mareedu Devi Sai Surya Charan, S/o M. Satya Sai Prabhu Daftu, Aged about 27^years, Occ Private Employee LIGH-490, Bharath Nagar, Backside AWdppa temple, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana^- 500018.

¶19

l0.Manchikatla Sravan, S/o Manchikatla Srinivas, Aged about^{29 years, Occ} Private Employee D.No C2-46, Ganga Colony, B-Zone, Near Tagore Stadium, Mandamani Mandal, Mancherial District, Telangana -504301.

¶20

Sura Srujan Kumar, S/o Sura Bhaskar, Aged about 26 years, Occ Private Qmployeg^{H. No t-42, Narayanapur,near ZPH School,Narayanapur,} Yellareddypet, Karimnagar, Telangana -505303.

¶21

Thangellapally Kavya, D/o Thangellapally Venkata Narsaiah, Aged about 32 Yrs, Occ Private Employee MC- 406, PV Colony, Near Aiea hospital, Manuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana -507117 .

¶22

13.Kosuri Preetham, S/o Kosuri Chinna Rao, Aged about 26 years, Occ Private Employee D. No 20-15-54/1 , Tummalaava, Near Sai Baba Temple, Rajamandry Urban, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh -533'10'l ,

¶23

14.Thota Sri Mrunalini, D/o Thota Rajashekar, Aged about 26 years, Occ Private Employee Rl/o H.No.1-1 2-125118, Sri Nagar Colony, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad, Telangana -503003.

¶24

l5.Gannavarapu Sahithi, W/o Phani Tarang Dronamraju, Aged about 27 years, Occ Private Employee Flat no 402, Spring leaf ailartment, Road Nti. +R, Prashanthi Hills, Near Bhoomi Mini Supermarket, Madura Nagar Arch, Maduranagar, Nizampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana -500090,

¶25

l6.Singanapalli Sai Chaitanya, S/o Singanapalli Venkataramana, Aged about 26 y_ears, Occ Private Employee D. No.3-45, Koppala Velaha Veedhi, Gunnathotavalasa, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh -535558.

¶26

lT.Sreeramula Krishna Chandrika, D/o Sreeramula Ravichandra. Aged about 26 years, Occ Private Employee D. No 13-14, Pathapeta, Prattikonda, Praftikonda Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh- 518380.

¶27

lS.Sripathi Akhil, S/o Sripathi Bhojanna, Aged about 28 years, Occ^private lmployee^{H.No.1-'13-4O01N201,Sai Residency,Vinayak Nagar,Ganesh} Colony, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503001.

¶28

1 9. Venu Murali Udugula, S/o Srinivas Udugula, Aged about 26 years, Occ Private Employee D. no 7-23711, Reddy Colony, Bhupalpalle, Bhupalpalli Mandal, Warangal, Telangana - 506169.

¶29

20.Maddela Vishnu Priya, D/o Maddela Narayana, Aqed about 26 years. Occ Private. Employee H. no 3-6-43612, Shubashnagar,karimnagar, T-ela'ngana - 505001 .

¶30

21.Pasam Grace Nazareth, D/o Pasam Jawaharnath, Aqed about 32 vears. OccPrivate Job D. no 16-2-67191, CBCID colony, Ram-amurthy ttagar, SgFi Bank, Hydemagar, Tirumalagiri, Hyderabad, Telanlana -50007i.

¶31

...PETITIONERS

¶32

AND

¶33

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Hioher Education Department Dr. 8.R.. Ambedkar Telangana Sbcretariat, HiderdUaa

¶34

The Vice Chancellor, The Jawahadal Nehru Technolooical Universitv. Ashok Nagar, Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Kukatpally,-Hyderabad -'500085. Mail: [email protected]

¶35

The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Ashok Nagar, Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500085. Mail: [email protected]. in, Rep . by its Registrar

¶36

The. Principal, The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University College of Engineerinil^{ScienceandTechnology Hyderabad AshokNaga'r, Kukaipally} Housing Board Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 510085. Mai[: [email protected]. in

¶37

Consortium of lnstitutions of Higher Leaming, UGC, Nilqiri Block, lllT Qg,rlpr.,^{Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032.Mait: [email protected] its} Chairman

¶38

Consortium of lnstitutions of Higher Leaming, Nilgiri block, lllT Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 5000-32. Mail: [email protected], Rep.' bi Registrar

¶39

The Dean, Consortium of lnstitutions of Higher Learning Nilgiri block, lllT Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - S0OO32. MZil: dean@m5itprolra m.net'

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents authorities in not awarding Degree of "Master of Science in lnformation Technology" (MSIT) programme at School of lnformation Technology JNT University, Hyderabad after completing the course from academic year 2019-2021 to the petitioners by not considering and disposing of the representations of the petitioners d1.29.01.2024, 02.02.2024, 09.03.2024, Og.04.2024 and 01.06.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article^.14, 15, '16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents forthwith to issue Degree Certificate of "Master of Science in lnformation Technology" (MSIT) programme at School of lnformation Technology JNT University, Hyderabad to the petitioners by considering the representations dt.29.01 .2024, 02.02.2024, 09.03.2024, 09.04.2024 and 01.06.2024 in the interest of justice and equity.

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶43

Petition under 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

¶44

direct the respondents forthwith to issue Degree certificate of "Master of science in lnformation Technology" (MSIT) programme at School of lnformation Technology JNT University, Hyderabad to the petitioners by considering the representations dt.29.01.2024, 02.02.2024, 09.03.2024, 09.O4.2024 and 01 .06.2024 in the interest of justice and equity, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAVINDAR

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 5, 6 & 7: cP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUDDUS, SC FOR JNTU

¶47

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶49

WRIT PETITION No.6O8 OP 2025

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7, Mohd. Abdul euddus, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and with the consent of lcarned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶52

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief, is that they have enrolled themselves for Master of Science & Information Technologr (MSIT) programme of two year duration in furtherance of the notification issued by the f,.a respondent University during the year 2Ol9 and completed the course by 202 I .

¶53

Petitioners further contend that even though the petitioners have completed the course in the year 2O2l and have been issued with no due certificate by the 3d respondent University, the petitioners are not being issued with the degree certificate till date, which action of the respondents it is contended as highty illegal and arbitrary.

¶54

¶55

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 by ptacing written instructions as furnished to him by the said respondents would submit that there are inter se disputes with regard to certain payments to be received from the respondent Nos.S to 7 which have been accumulated to be in a sum of Rs. 1,84,74,25O/- and since the petitioners have obtained admissions in the aforesaid institution for completing the course, the certificates are not being furnished.

¶56

karned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,5, 6 and 7 on the.other hand submits that the respondent Nos.s, 6 and 7 were permitted by respondent University to admit the students into two year MSIT prograrune and accordingly the petitioners have completed the course during the two year academic period of 2Ol9-2O21.

¶57

lrarned Government Pleader would further submit that as per the MoU entered into between the 3.d respondent University and the respondent Nos.5 to 7, it is only the 3ra respondent which has undertaken to issue degree at the end of the programme inasmuch as the entire programme of learning and including curriculum is only determined by the 3ra respondent.

¶58

¶59

I have taken note of the respective contentions^urged.

¶60

It is an unfortunate situation whereby the respondent No. 3 which boasts itself to be one of the^premier University owned by the Government and respondent Nos.S to 7 which are also under the agis of the l't respondent continue to hght among themselves for the amounts being claimed as due^pursuant to an MoU entered into between them, at the cost of the students who in their pursuit to obtain higher^{professionalqualification} have got themselves admitted into 2 year MSIT^programme offered by the 3.d respondent under the impression that the institution into which they are seeking admission is a consortium of National Level Universities comprising of J'd respondent, IIIT & S.V. University. Further, the petitioners, claim to have paid the fee as prescribed and completed the course of two year programme oflered by the 3rd respondent.

¶61

Though on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 it is contended that the respondent Nos.S to 7 are due a sum of Rs. 1,84,74,250/-, it is to be noted that the said dues are not on account of any default committed by the petitioners in either paying the fee notified by the 3'd respondent or any other sum due to be paid by them for pursuing the course offered by the 3.d respondent.

¶62

¶63

¶64

On the other hand the 3.d respondent having issued no due certificate to the petitioners, could not have put the careers of the petitioners at stake for no fault of their,s, by not issuing the certificate for the course completed by them. The only lault if any committed by the petitioners is, trusting the claim of the respondents being the consortium of National [rvel Universities, their functioning would be fair and transparent, which trust reposed by the students like petitioners, the respondents have failed to retain.

¶65

Further, if the 3rd respondent has any claim against respondent Nos.S to 7 or dues to be recovered, the same are under an MoU entered into between them, which has no connection whatsoever with the students who have secured admission by paying the prescribed fee, Thus, if the 3.d respondent has any ciaim against respondent Nos.s to 7, it ought to have taken steps for recovering the aforesaid amount from the respondent Nos.s to 7 independently, but not at the cost of students like petitioners.

¶66

That apart, the l"t respondent who exercises administrative control over the respondents did not take any action against the 3'd respondent or respondent Nos.s to Z for

¶67

)

¶68

¶69

putting the lives of the students^{at stake on being brought to its} notlce

¶70

The adamant stand of^{the 3'd respondent in not issuing} the degree certificates to the^{petitioners on the pretext of} respondent Nos.S to 7^{being in due certain amounts to it with} which the students^{like petitioners are unconnectedwith, in the} considered view of this^{Court,clearlyamounts to 3'd respondent} resorting to blackmailing,^{involving petitioners instead of} resolving their internal^{disputes otherwise.}

¶71

This approach adopted^{by the 3rd respondent in making} the petitioners run lrom^{pitlar to post to secure their certificates} unsuccessfully, has^{forced them {inally to approachthis Court} by the present Writ Petition.^{If the respondentsare allowed} _to continue with this kind of^{approach,the same would put the} careers of students seeking^{into admission in institutions by} making tall claims of being a^{Nationalkvel Universities, in} jeopardy.

¶72

In view of the above,^{this Court is of the considered view} that the action of the^{2nd and 3'd respondents in not issuing} MSIT course certificate to the^{petitionerswho claim to have} completed the said course during^{the year 2079-2027, apart} from being contrary to the^{terms and conditionsof MoU entered}

into between the 3.d respondent with the respondent Nos.S to 7, whereby it has been specihcally agreed that the degree at the end of the programme would be awarded by the 3rd respondent, is also against the UGC guidelines/ Regulations whereby the colleges are barred from withholding or refusing to issue certificate on the ground of non-payment/fee dues even by the students.

¶77

In view of the above, this Court is of the view a writ of mandamus is to be issued directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue MSIT programme certihcate to the petitioners.

¶78

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue MSIT programme certificate to all the petitioners who have successfully completed the two year course within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶79

Further, as the action of respondent No.3 does not befit the status of a National Universit5r in conduct of its affairs, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court by the present Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that exemplary costs is to be imposed on 3.d respondent, qua_ntilied in a sum of Rs.SO,OOO/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to be paid by ths 3.a respondent to the petitioners collectively.

)./

'r.a

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶85

Petition shall stand closed.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

W.P.NO.608 0F 2025

Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court^(That the Respondent No.3 herein is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Petitioners collectively.

TOTAL

Rs. Ps.

50,000-00

50,000-00

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Higher Education^{Department Dr. 8.R.. Ambedkar} Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of^Telangana.

¶99

The Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru^{Technological University,Ashok} Nagar, Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Kukatpally,^{Hyderabad - 500085.}

¶100

The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological^University, lglglJiagar, Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Kukatpally,^Hyderabad '500085.

¶101

The Principal, The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological^{Univ-ersity College} .of Enqineerinb Science and Technology Hyderabad,^{Ashok Nagar,Kukatpally} Housing Board Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad^{- 500085.}

¶102

The Chairman, Consortium of^lnstitutions of^{HigherLeaming, UGC, Nilgiri} Block, lllT Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad^{- 500032.}

¶103

The Registrar, Consortium of^{lnstitutionsof Higher Leaming, Nilgiri block,lllT} Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad^{- 500032.}

¶104

The Dean, Consortium of lnstitutions^{of Higher Leaming Nilgiri block,lllT} Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad^{- 500032.}

¶105

One CC to SRI G.RAVINDAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶106

One CC to SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUDDUS,^{SC FOR JNTU} IOPUC]

¶107

10.Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION,^{High Court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

¶108

11.Two CD Copbs

BSR BS^$

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10tO1tZO25

ORDER

WP.No.60B of 2025

6&N
(),'se
tk)
.(
S FII
(:
r.-
\ _e
<.1
hgl$ t

¶115

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶116

WTH COSTS

¶117

Ory-'u >N

Mohammed Sameena v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sameena v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banothu Gopya, Vs The State of Telangana

Mudige Shruthi Vs The Telangana State Council for Higher Education

Nimma Rama Chandra Reddy, Vs State of Telangana

Sri Biru Surender Reddy Vs Ashwini Tanaji Wakhde, lAS

Mekala Poshetty Vs Sri Navin Mittal I.A.S

Bathula Buchamma Vs Karnati Nagarjuna