Telangana High Court

Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 24 June, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

             THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                  WRIT PETITION No.2930 OF 2022
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to issue Writ of

Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No. 2 in not issuing

the original certificates of the petitioner, as illegal, improper, arbitrary,

unjust, contrary to law and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 3rd Respondent to

consider the petitioner's education in the 5th Respondent college.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. P. Sarada

learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Council of Higher

Education.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had completed his Graduation in B.Tech. from Balaji Institute of

Engineering Sciences at Narsampet, Warangal District (Respondent No.2)

with specialization as ECE, for the academic years 2014-2018. After

completing his B.Tech. graduation in the year 2018, the petitioner had

applied for TS LAWCET-2021 entrance examination in the year 2021 for

Law degree admission and secured 65.127 Marks and attained 998 State

Rank. The petitioner was intimated to attend the 1st Phase of Web Dr.GRR,J

Counselling and he was instructed to produce the original certificates of

SSC, Intermediate, Graduation along with Community and Caste

Certificate, Bonafide and TC to the counselling. But all the said

certificates of the petitioner were in the custody of 2nd respondent and were

not handed over to him. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and

asked him to return the certificates but the 2nd respondent denied to

handover the original certificates of the petitioner stating that until the

4th respondent deposited the fees reimbursement amount to them, they

would not return the original certificates and issued a custodian certificate

and asked him to submit the same to the 3rd respondent authorities. The

petitioner was allotted Law degree seat in Anantha Law College

(Respondent No. 5). But the college authorities instructed the petitioner to

submit the original certificates.

3.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was no way concerned with the fee reimbursement and it was the

obligation of the respondent No.4 authorities to pay the academic fee of the

petitioner to the 2nd respondent college. The petitioner had no knowledge

or intimation about the fees default by the respondent No.4. Upon

verification, the petitioner was informed that he should pay the three years

academic fees in order to receive his certificates from respondent No.2.

Dr.GRR,J

The learned counsel contended that the same was illegal, arbitrary, unjust,

unreasonable and violative of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of

India and prayed to allow the writ petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for TSCHE submitted that the

admissions for Law Degree for TS LAWCET 2021 were completed and no

seats were available now and stated that the writ petition would become

infructous. However, on the aspect of retention of original certificates by

the respondent No.2 college, she submitted that as per UGC guidelines, no

Higher Educational Institution could retain the original certificates of the

candidates and if they were not returned, the petitioner ought to have

complained to the University which would have taken action against the

respondent No.2 college and filed the copy of the Notification issued by

UGC on Refund of Fees and Non Retention of Original Certificates issued

in October 2018.

5. Perused the record and the Notification by UGC on Refund of

Fees and Non Retention of Original Certificates issued in October 2018.

4.2 of the Notification is with regard to Verification and Non-retention of

Students' Academic and Personal certificates. It reads as follows:

"4.2.1 No HEI shall insist upon a student to submit the original academic and personal certificates, like, mark-

Dr.GRR,J

sheets, school leaving certificates and other such documents, at the time of submitting admission form, but the submission of self-attested copies thereof shall be mandatory.

4.2.2 HEIs shall physically verify the originals at the time of admission of the student in his/her presence and return them immediately after satisfying themselves about their authenticity, keeping the attested copies for their record.

4.2.3 The self-attested certificates of students shall be held valid and authentic by institution concerned and/or the affiliating university for all purposes and administrative requirements and should there be a need for physical verification at any time during the course of the programme of study, such verification shall be undertaken and the original certificates thus used for verification shall be returned immediately to the student concerned.

4.2.4 Taking the certificates into institutional custody under any circumstance or pretext is strictly prohibited.

4.2.5 In case of any suspicion over the authenticity or genuineness of a certificate, reference may be made to university or the Board which issued the certificate to the student and the admission be subjected to the authentication, but original certificate shall not be retained by the HEI under any circumstance."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the

judgment of the High Court of Madras in K. Palanisamy Vs

Correspondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and Ors1., of

Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 20726 OF 2019 decided on 17-10-2019,

wherein it was held that certificates of students could not be held back by

an educational institution citing financial dues.

MANU/TN/6538/2019 Dr.GRR,J

7. He also relied upon the judgement the High Court of Madras,

Madurai Bench in S. Muthukamatchi vs. The Director of Technical

Education, Anna University and Ors.2 in WP (MD) No. 14394 OF 2012

decided on 18-12-2012, wherein it was held that:

"I would not venture to get into that controversy, namely, whether the College is entitled to collect the balance of fees or not. The main grievance of the petitioner is about the certificates of her daughter. Those certificates are not like fixed deposit receipt on which, banks claim a general lien in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the certificates cannot be retained at any rate. Hence, this writ petition is allowed directing the fourth respondent to return all the original Certificates deposited by the petitioner forthwith."

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the

judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Court on its own Motion Vs

Directorate of Education & Ors. in WP (C) 6658 of 2019 & CM APPL.

30816.0 of 2019 dated 11-07-2019 where it was held that:

"8. There are methods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the school. Even a suit could have been filed by Respondent No.2 upon the parents of the students, which has not been done so far. No such suit has been instituted by Respondent School for the recovery of outstanding fees.