Telangana High Court
Vyshnav Dinesh vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No.34185 OF 2023
Between:
Vyshnav Dinesh & others
... Petitioners
And
State of Telangana & others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No.34185 OF 2023
% 03.06.2024
Between:
# Vyshnav Dinesh & others
... Petitioners
And
$ State of Telangana & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Y.Soma Srinath Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents :GP for Education for R1 to
R5
Mr.M.P.K.Aditya for R6
? Cases Referred:
(1) W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020
(2) MANU/TN/6538/2019
(3) MANU/TN/2168/2012
(4) WP (C) 6658 of 2019 & CM APPL.30816.0 of 2019, dated 11.07.2019
(5) MANU/TN/2168/2012
(6) 2019 scc online Mad.9385
(7) W.P.No.2930 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022
(8) W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020
(9) W.P.No.9606 of 2021, dated 27.01.2021
(10) (10)WP(c) No.20027/2020, dated 16.09.2020
(11) [1995] 2 WLR 383]
3
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No.34185 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Mr.Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned
Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr.M.P.K.Aditya, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6.
2. The Petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer
as under :
".....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the inaction of respondent No. 3 and 4 in not
taking action against the respondent No. 6 for not issuing
the transfer certificates to the petitioners children as
arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair and violative of Art.14,
21-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
6" respondent to issue the transfer certificates to the
petitioners children and pass such other order or
orders......."
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
3. The case of the Petitioners as per the averments
made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by the
petitioners in support of the present Writ Petition, in
brief, are as follows:
a) The Petitioners are parents of students who are studying at
Brilliant Grammar High School, Godavarikhani. All the students
were pursuing their schooling at the 6th respondent school and
previously got admitted at the Brilliant Grammar High School,
Godavarikhani.
b) The 6th respondent did not give Transfer Certificate and the
6th respondent harassed the petitioners to make additional
payment apart from the balance fee payment in order to issue
the Transfer Certificate. Upon the petitioners' sincere request,
the 7th respondent accepted to join petitioners' children to the 7th
respondent school subject to the condition that the Transfer
Certificate would be given to them at the earliest. While,
petitioners tried to persuade to give petitioners' children's
Transfer Certificates, the 6th respondent has failed to issue the
same and resorted to making illegal demands time and again.
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
c) The 7th respondent on numerous occasions informed the
petitioners herein to submit the Transfer Certificates at the
earliest and also indicated that the admission was provided only
on the assurance that the Transfer Certificates of the said
students would be provided at the earliest. For which, petitioners
requested for additional time to submit the Transfer Certificates
as the same was not being released by the 6th respondent.
d) Left with no other opinion, the petitioners made several
representations to the 4th & 6th respondents addressing
petitioners grievance, but to no avail as the petitioners did not
receive any reply except on one occasion where the 4th
respondent has indicated vide proceedings Rc.No.999/A7/2022,
undated August, 2022 that the Transfer Certificate can be
provided upon payment of balance fee to the 6th respondent,
there is no pending fee which has to be paid to the 6th
respondent and as such the petitioners could not be fastened
with such liability.
e) It is specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners
requested further time before the 7th respondent. The 7th
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
respondent stated that they were helpless as the 4th respondent
issued closing orders vide proceedings bearing
Rc.No.3220/A7/2022, dated 17.10.2023, thereby the 2nd
respondent on the basis of closing orders dated 17.10.2023,
directed the petitioners to take necessary steps to close down
the classes I to X for not submitting Transfer Certificates of the
children of the petitioners. When the 7th respondent has
challenged the closing orders vide proceedings bearing
Rc.No.3220/A7/2022, dated 17.10.2023, this Court
passed Interim orders observing as under:
"Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner-
Institution is an Institution imparting Education to around
900 students, this court opines for the sake of
non-submission of transfer certificates in respect of the 46
students, the other students cannot be penalized and put
to hardship in the midst of the Academic year. Moreover,
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Institution undertakes to submit the transfer certificates as
called upon vide Proc. No.999/ A7/2022, dated 28.06.2023
of District Educational Officer, Peddapalli in respect of 46
students by 15.12.2023 without fail."
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
f) It is further the case of the petitioners that the 7th
respondent putting pressure on the petitioners to submit the
Transfer Certificate and the 7th respondent requires the said
Transfer Certificates of students to register the students names
in Unified District Information System for Education and the last
date for registration had already passed. Aggrieved by the same,
petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ
Petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD
A. Proceedings Rc. No.999/A7/2022, August, 2023 of
the District Educational Offficer, Peddapalli, reads as
under:
"The parents of students of Brilliant Grammer High
School Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli
District have approached the District Collector, Peddapalli
stating that the Management of Sri Sidhartha High School,
Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani is not issuing the
Transfer Certificates to the Children.
In this regard, the Parents of students are hereby
informed that, the issues are between the Managements of
Brilliant Grammar High School Godavarikhani and Sri
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
Sidhartha High School, Markandeya Colony,
Godavarikhani. The Parents should obey and follow as per
the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court and ask for
Transfer Certificates from the Management where they
have paid the fee and verify the Fee receipt books and fee
collection registers at Sri Sidhartha High School,
Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal
and as per the records they have to pay the fee and obtain
the Transfer Certificates.
Further, the Parents of students are informed that, they
should submit the Transfer Certificates to the Children to
the Correspondent, Brilliant Grammar High School,
Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal to continue the
student in Brilliant Grammar High School, Gadavarikhani,
Ramagundam Mandal."
B. The counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent and in
particular paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 11 read as under:-
8. In reply to para 3 to 11 I respectfully submit, I am
running the school with all requisite permissions from the
year 1999-2000. They are more than 5000 students who
studied and qualified 10th exams before leaving my school
for further studies ever since I set up and started running
the same. In fact the respondent No.49 also worked with
me in my institution/School and later the respondent
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
No.49 felt apart from me for his selfish needs and set up
the parallel school under the name and style of respondent
No.49 and slowly instigated the students and their parents
of my school of course on all false promises to provide
both education at lesser fees and lured them to join in
school while assuring falsely to the respondent No. 1 to 43
they need not pay the past dues pending for the 2019-
2020, 2020- 2021 and 2021-2022 years.
9. I respectfully submit that respondent No.1 to 43 fell
prey for false promises of respondent No.49 and joined
their children without clearing my school fees for the year
2019 to 2022 and without taking Transfer certificate from
my school essentially required for new admission perhaps
in the notion that they can approach the High Court and
take shelter at fag end of their school education by
pretending that they lose their carrier if Hon'ble court
doesn't come to their rescue and it has become a practice
year after year to approach the court just before last date
of examination and pretend that if the Hon'ble High Court
doesn't come to their rescue they all lose 1 year and leave
a dent in their carrier. It is also not out of place to mention
that the notice served by the Hon'ble court was received a
day after the matter was fixed for hearing and the
impugned order was passed.
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
11. I further submit that both interim prayer and Main
prayer are one and the same and the order passed in the
form of granting the relief as prayed in the main writ
petition is contrary to law as held by Supreme Court from
time to time. It is pertinent to mention that the certificate
sought by the petitioners or their parents after 2 years
after leaving the school is of no use as that may not
fetch any benefit for further studies. Perhaps, no
school should admit the student without Transfer
certificate as it is mandatory required condition
precedent to admit the students in respective school.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
5. This Court opines that imparting education is the primary
duty of the state and hence, the Transfer Certificates of children
cannot be withheld by school, because the fees are due to the
school. Every child has fundamental right to education as
indicated and envisaged under Article 21A of the Constitution of
India. The respondents being government servants cannot act in
unfair manner by supporting the wrongful actions of the 6th
respondent. It is only on the ground of fee that the Transfer
Certificates of the children of the petitioners had been withheld
by the 6th respondent.
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
6. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment,
dated 24.01.2020 in W.P.No.21137 of 2019 dealing with
withholding of original academic qualification certificates
of the students observed at paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 as
under:-
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, but we hold that
withholding her original academic qualification
certificates, is impermissible in law.
30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the action of
the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the original
academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who
had discontinued study of M.B.B.S. I year course in the
said college, is declared 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 is 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 respondent is forthwith
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
directed to return the original academic qualification
certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs.
The Division Bench very clearly observed that
withholding the original academic qualification
certificates of the students is impermissible in law.
7. The High Court of Madras in K.Palanisamy Vs.
Correspondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and
Others of Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 20726 of 2019
decided on 17.10.2019 reported in MANU/TN/6538/2019,
held that certificates of students could not be held back
by educational institutions citing financial dues.
8. In the judgment of the High Court of Madras, Madurai
Bench in S.Muthukamatchi vs. The Director of Technical
Education, Anna University and others in WP(MD)
No.14394 of 2012 decided on 18.12.2012 reported in
MANU/TN/2168/2012, it is observed as under:
"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
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
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."
9. 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, it was held as under:-
"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.
9. In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that
the School Leaving Certificates cannot be withheld by the
respondents."
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
refers to paragraph No.36 of the judgment dated
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
16.03.1995 of House of Lords Opinions of the Lords of
Appeal for judgment in the Cause in Re-C (A minor) (A.P.)
(Appellant) (On appeal from A Divisional Court of the
Queen's Bench Division) reported in [1995] 2 WLR 383]
and contends that the respondents are entitled to
withhold certificate till the fee due is paid to the school.
11. In S.Muthukamatch vs. The Director of Technical
Education, Anna University in W.P.(MD) NO.14394 of
2012, dated 18.12.2012, the Madras High Court at
Madurai Bench categorically held that certificates of student is
her/his property. College cannot detain the said certificates at
any rate. Even if the college has any monetary claim, the
rejection of the said certificates is not the method by which the
claim can be enforced. There is no lien on the certificates of the
students.
12. The Madras High Court in R.Pradeep Raj v.
Commissioner, the Directorate of Technical Education
reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad.9385, and this Court in
Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs. The State of Telangana in
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
W.P.No.2930 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022 and D.Vaishnavi
vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Prinicipal
Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare, Hydeabad in
W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020 and also the
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.9606 of 2021,
dated 27.10.2021 directed the college concerned
authorities to return the certificates and granted liberty to
the college to claim fee by availing legal remedies in
similar circumstances.
13. The order dated 16.09.2020 passed in
W.P.(C)No.20027 of 2020 in "DIPESH KU.PADHIRARI v.
HI-TECH MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND OTHERS", in
particular, para 8 of the said Judgment reads as under:
"8. It must be mentioned that during arguments it was
pointed out to us that some educational institutions are
collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for
all the years. It was submitted that this was done because
the institute was not sure whether the student would leave
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the
student left the course in midstream then for the
remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute
would suffer. In our view an educational institution
can only charge prescribed fees for one
semester/year. If an institution feels that any
particular student may leave in midstream then, at
the highest, it may require that student to give a
bond/Bank guarantee that the balance fees for the
whole course would be received by the institute
even if the student left in midstream. If any
educational institution has collected fees in advance,
only the fees of that semester/year can be used by
the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in
fixed deposits in a nationalised Bank. As and when fees fall
due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that
semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The
rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that
they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned
on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom
the fees were collected in advance."
14. UGC guidelines, dated 23.04.2007, in particular,
paragraph No.2 reads as under:
"2. The Commission is of the view that the
Institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
in original, force retention of admitted students which
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 retain the School/Institution, Leaving
Certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other
documents in original."
15. This Court opines that the 6th respondent cannot withhold
the Transfer Certificate unless and until the amount in dispute as
school fee is paid by the petitioner. 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 children to
get the Transfer Certificates from one school to join another
school for whatever reason cannot be denied by the school
authorities merely because the school fee is due, if an amount is
due towards fee, the proper course open to the 6th respondent is
to file appropriate proceedings against the petitioners for
recovery before competent courts and coercive tactics cannot be
adopted by the 6th respondent to make the petitioners pay the
school fee. This Court opines that there is no justification by the
SN,J
wp_34185_2023
6th respondent to withhold the certificates of the children of the
petitioners.
17. Taking into consideration:
(i) the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
(ii) the observations of various Court's in the judgments
(referred to and extracted above)
(iii) the UGC guidelines, dated 23.04.2007, the Writ
Petition is allowed as prayed for and the 6th respondent is
directed to issue the Transfer Certificates to the
petitioners' children within a period of two (02) weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall
stand closed. However there shall be no order as to costs.
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 03.06.2024
Note : L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o.ktm
