Ms. Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY HE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 40238 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ms. Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini, D/o Hari Krishna Bhashapaka, Aged^- 24^Yrs, Occ - Student, F/o. H.No. 5-11-48, Flat No. 204, Venkateshwara Apartments Shantinagar, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^Secretaryto Govt Higher Education Department, Dr.BR Ambedkar^Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad,Telangana 500 002

¶12

The Telangana State Council of Higher Education,^{MahavirMarg, Hyderabad} 500 028. Represented by its Secretary

¶13

The Commissioner of Technical Education,^{TelanganaState, Nampally'} Hyderabad 500 028.

¶14

fhe Mahindra University, Bahadurpally, Jeedimetla Hyderabad^{500 043 Rep.} by its Chairman and Vice Chancellor.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 a^{Writ of} Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th^{Respondent in withholdingthe} petitioners original educational certificates as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the^principles of^natural iustice,^{and further declare that} withholding original certificates on the^{ground of non-paymentof fees is violative} of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution^{of lndia and consequently directthe} Respondents,^particularly Respondent No.4,^{to release all originaleducational} certificates and documents,^{including the Marks Sheet and DegreeCertificate,} which are unlawfully withheld.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci' :umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cot'r may be pleased to direct the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.4, tr^forthwith release the petitioners original educational certificates, including the Mirr <s Sheet and Degree Certificate pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

c o u n s e r f o r th e P e ti ti o' "'' [;:t rt*=/i.t Hl ['oR.,illoRi o,,,

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : GP FOR HIGHER I: )UCATION Counsel forthe Respondents No.4: -.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

,.}

¶23

HON'BLE MRS, JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

IT PETITI NN 4 2 2 2

DATE D: 09.O1.2026

Between:

Ms. Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini Petitioner And The State of Telangana and Others ....Respondents

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Ms. T.Tejaswini Rathod, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3,

¶30

The oetitio ner aDo roached the Court seekinq Draver

¶31

as under:

¶32

"....to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in withholding the petitioners original educational certificates as illegal, arbitrary u nconstitutiona I and violative of the principles of natural justice and further declare that withholding original certificates on the ground of nonpayment of fees is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No.4 to release all original educational certificates and documents including the

¶33

2

¶34

Marks Sheet and Degree Certificate which ; re unlawfully withheld and to pass. ."

¶35

The case of h n ln ir f as ptl the averments made in the affidavit filed bv t I e petitiorrcLin suDDort of the Dresent writ Detition is as urr ler:

¶36

The petitioner completed B.Tech. in Como rter Science and Engineering (CSE) from the 4th Respondent tJ riversity, in the year 2024, bearrng Roll No. SE20UCSE2442. At the time of the convocation held on 02.08.2024, the petitioner r as issued only a Provisional/Passed Out Certificate. Despite enquiries and repeated requests, the petitioner's original rttrks sheet and degree certificate had not been issued by the - liversity on the ground of alleged pending fee dues. The petition( r belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Madiga) community and, lue to severe financial constraints, is unable to pay the said rlleged pending fees. The withholding of the original certificat,: ; has adversely affected the petitioner's prospects of pursuing h r her studies and securing employment, both in India and abroad.

¶37

It is further the case of the petitioner that : Sgrieved by the action of the 4th respondent, the petition:- submitted a representation dated 17.LO.2025 before the lelangana State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC). The C: nmission, vide

¶38

J

¶39

proceedings dated 03.11.2025 in HRC No. 6816 of 2025, granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner by recommending to the Chairman and Vice-Chancellor of Mahindra University to return the original educational certificates and to issue the Transfer Certificate, Study Certificate, and Conduct Certificate within three days. The Commission further directed their personal appearance before it on 18.11.2025.

¶40

It is further the case of the petitioner that challenging the said proceedings of the Human Rights Commission, the 4th respondent filed W.P. No. 33657 of 2025 before this Hon'ble Court, and by order dated 06.11.2025, this Hon'ble Court granted a stay of the proceedings of the Human Rights Commission. Due to the subsisting stay, the 4th respondent has continued to withhold the petitioner's original certificates, thereby infringing the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶41

PERU ED THE RECORD

¶42

(A) The letter vid e Lr.N o.O5 oal TGCHE/ Refund of Oriqinals/ 2024, dated 05.08.202 4 issued bv Telan n un it H' u tion era ba

¶43

4

¶44

dd resse,l +,a +he Re aa ts fou K^ll T ll MGU, SU, PU, NTU JNAF TMW is r cted here C T:

¶45

"Sir,

¶46

Sub:- TGCHE Withholding of^{OriginalC€ titicatesoF the} Students - Instructions to the Ur^versities/ Colleges- Regarding.

¶47

Ref :- This offlce Lr. No.^{TGCHE/FeeReir bursement} 12024,^{dt.23.O2.2024}

¶48

While referring to the subject and^{refere ncecitedthatrn} continuation of earlier letter, it^{has come} to^{he notice of the} Govern ment that certa in orivate^colleoes wt hhold n the orioinal certifica^es of^studen on thJ pretext of not recervrn o fee reimbursement^{fromthe Go,,:rnment.}

¶49

Withholding of original certificit^{es willhave} significant implications for the^{students,r specially when} they need to^present these^{documentstrl join for higher} education, applying or^{joining forjc bs and other} purposes.

¶50

Further, in terms of UGC^(Grievar,r e^{Redrssal of} students) Requlations 2018, the^colleoes rre bar d f rom t oldinq or refusinq o return^{anv (rcument in the} form o certificates of^{deoree,diolma or} !; nv othe r award or other document deDosited^{with it bv a} tudents for the ourooses of seekino admission^{in such ins} ;l itution.

¶51

Therefore, I am by directiorr^{request the} Universities to address/ instruct^{to all ,r'filiated Private} Colleges under its iurisdiction^{not to ir ! ist paymentof} Tuition Fee from the students^{who are eligible for fee} reimbursement and not to^{denyt suing original} certificates on the^pretext of^{notreceiving fee} reimbursement from the^{Government. Its not a healthy} practice. Such colleges may be blackliste I and shall^not 6e considered for free reimbursement,^{nrhich will also} affects affiliation of such^colleges.

¶52

The Colleges shall be directed to^{follow the i structionsof the} Government scrupulously and^{failure in tl- i iregardwill be} viewed seriously and^{stringent action will be initiatedagainst} such colleges. "

¶53

5

¶54

_.--i

¶55

(B) UGC quidelines. dated 23.O4.20O7, in oarticular,

¶56

oa raq ra Dh No.2 reads as under:

¶57

"2. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/U n iversities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other optrons of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the Cah,r ol In clifrrli^rr I a. vtn lic= te ark certificate nd other documen ts in orioinal."

¶58

In pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 31.12.2025, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had taken out personal notice to the respondent No.4 herein and filed proof of service of the said notice upon respondent No.4 vide Memo dated 08.01.2026, duly enclosing the original postal tracking report evidencing the same, duly bringing on record the fact that the notice was returned with the endorsement "refused".

¶59

The Dlvision Bench of this Court in its ludgment dated 24.01.2O2O 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 05.07.20!7 i.e., original certificates

¶60

.t' l

¶61

6

¶62

submitted by the petitioner/candidate shall not t( be returned to them, till they complete their course of study :nd appear for the University examination holding it as un-: )nstitutional. A similar view was taken by this Court in Mahatrr a Gandhi Law

¶63

College, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad v. State of I elangana vide ludgment dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.2 Z +17 of 2018. A Similar view was also taken^yrde ludgment of : ris Court dated 29.7O.2024 passed in W.P.No.25559 of 20,1. in Lakshmi Saranya v. The State of Telangana.

¶64

A Division Bench of this Court vide ts iudqment, dated 24.O1.2O20 in W.P.No.21137 ot 2Ot9 dealinq with withholdino of oriqinal academic^qualificatil n certificates of the students obse ed at oaraqraDh Nos .- 29 and 30 as

¶65

under

¶66

We are not expressing any opinion on the r tht of the 3rd respon dent -College to recover amounts tow;r ls the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 lr:hs from the petitioner / her parent, but we hold that wi! rholdinq her oriqinal academic oualification cert ficates, is imoermissible in law.

¶67

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; th€ action of the 3rd respon dent-College in not returning the or < inal academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who h,r discontinued study of f'1.8.8.S. I year course in the said colk:, s, is declared

¶68

7

¶69

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 rs declared to be ultra vires the powers oF the State Government under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd resoondent is forthwith directed to return the oriqinal academic oualification certif icates of the Det tioner to her. No costs

¶70

The Division Bench ve clearlv observed that withholdinq the oraqinaI academic oualification certificates of the students is imoermissible in law.

¶71

The High Court of Madras in K.Palanisamy Vs. Correspondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and Others of Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 20726 of 2O19 decided on 17.1O.2019 reported in MANU/TN/6538/2OL9, held that certificates of students could not be held back by educational institutions citing financial dues.

¶72

In the Judqment of the Hiqh Court of Delhi an Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate of Education & Ors. in WP^(C) 6658 of 2019 & CM APPL.30816.O of 2019, dated 11.O7.2019, it was held as under:-

¶73

"8. There are methods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the school. Even a suit could have been filed N .2 are t fth

¶74

8

¶75

students. whic h has not been d^o n^{e so} far.^J o such^suit has been instituted by Respondent School^{for I 1e recovery} of outstanding fees. 9. In view of these facts. this^{Court is of} I^{he opinion} that the school Leavinq Certificates :annot be with hel d bv the resoond^ents

¶76

In S.Muth ukamatchi vs. The Direator of^Technical Education. Anna Universitv in^{W.P.fMD'l NO.14394of} 20L2, dated 18.12. 2OL2. the^M dras^tl oh^Courtat Madurai Bench cateooricallv held that ( ertificates of studen is her/ his oro^{Dertv. Colleoe cannot} c etain the said certifi tes at anv rate. Even if the^{co ll} eoe^hasanv moneta rv claim. the refusal to handor er the sa id certific tes to the stu ents is not th metho1 bv which the claim n be enforced. There is no lienonl .l^re certificates of the students.

¶77

The Madras High Court in^{R.Pr:r leep Rai v.} Commissioner, the Directorate of^{Techni :al Education} reported in 2O19 SCC Online Mad.9385,^{anr this Courtin} Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs'^The State of^{Telangana in} W.P.No.293O ot 2022, dated^24.O6.2022 anl^D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by^itsPrincipal Secretary Health^{Medicaland Family Welf;r e, Hyderabad} in W.P.No.2LL37 ol^{2O19, dated 24.OL.2O2(and also the}

¶78

o

¶79

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andrha Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Management Association v. The State of Andhra Pradesh in W.p.No.96OG of 2O21, dated 27.LO.2O2L directed the coltege 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.

¶80

L2. Based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 24.O1.2O2O passed in W.p.No.2ttg7 of 2O19, this Court had allowed W.P.No.34185 oI 2(J23 vide its order dated 03.06.2024 granting identical relief as granted in W.P.No.21137 ot 2019.

¶81

. This Court opines that UGC by its guidelines (referred to and extracted above) had directed the Universities, to which the colleges like the 4th 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, 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

¶82

1

¶83

l0

¶84

institutions like the respondent No.4 Univesity, )ave any claim towards fee, the said institutions are reqrt red to initiate proceedings for recovery of fee dues and r:, nnot resort to withholding of all certificates of the students in violation of the UGC guidelines.

¶85

14, The learned counsel appearing on tehalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue n the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court, dated 27.LL.2O25 passed in W.P. No.32480 of 2025. The learned Assistant Governmen: Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 do not dispute the said submissi,l n made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the p etitioner.

¶86

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

¶87

This Court opines that the responden No.4 cannot withhold the petitioner's original educati() ral certificates (documents including the Marks Sheet and De:r ree Certificate) under any pretext. There is no lien on the r:r rtificate of the students since the certificate of the student is^.T s/her^property. This Court opines that the right of students to obtain their Certificates from one institution to^join another ir stitution cannot

¶88

l1

¶89

be denied by^{the concerned authorities merely becausethe} 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 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 respondent No.4 in withholding all originals educational certificates and documents,^including Marks Sheet and Degree Certificate of the^petitioner for^non- payment of tu ition Fee.

¶90

A bare perusal of the record indicates that specific instructions vide 1r.No.0508/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 Universitles (referred to and extracted above) 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

¶91

!

¶92

12

¶93

by students for the purpose of seeking ac r^.rission in such institution. Therefore duly taking into consider::ion the view of the various High Courts on the subject : sue in various Judgments, referred to and extracted above, : )is Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as t rayed for in the present writ petition.

¶94

L7. Takinq into consideration:

¶95

(a) The aforesaid facts and circunr itances of the case,

¶96

(b) The submissions of the le; rned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, ar d the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Hill rer Education appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. . to 3.

¶97

(c) The specific instruct ons vide Lr.No.OSO8/TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated 05.04.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telanl ana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressr: I to al! the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above),

¶98

(d) The observations made an var (,us Judgments (referred to and extracted above),

¶99

l3

¶100

(e) The UGC^{Guidelinesdated 23'O4'2OO7'in} particular,^{paragraph No.2 (referred toand extracted} above),

¶101

The writ petition is^{disposedofdirectingthe} respondent No,4 to^{return all the originat educationat} certificates, and documents,^{including the MarksSheet} and Degree Certificate^{of the petitioner, which are in the} custody of the^{respondent No'4, duly taking into} consideration the^{observationsmade invarious} ludgments^(referred to^{and extracted above), and the} specific instructions^{vide Lr.No.O508/TGCHE/Refundof} Originals/2O24 dated^{05.O8.2024issued by the Secretary,} Telangana Council of Higher^{Education, Hyderabad} addtessed to all the^{Registrars of Universities (referred to} and extracted above), and^{also theUGC Guidelines} (referred to and extracted above)^{forthwith.However,} there shall be no order^{as to costs.}