Ragineni Poojith vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questions the action of the Respondent No. 4 in withholding the petitioners' Original certificates i.e., 10th Original Memo Provisional Degree Certificate Cumulative Marks Memo on the ground of nonpayment of unpaid fees overlooking the fact that the petitioner was sanctioned fee reimbursement and the demand for payment of the same is contrary to the Guidelines issued by the Respondent no 2 dated 23/02/2024 and consequently direct the respondents particularly Respondent No 4 to release the original certificates including 10th Original Memo Provisional Degree Certificate Cumulative Marks Memo forthwith.

Heard Sri T. Sharath, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Jawabnavis Jayanth Naga Sai, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Mr. K.Sharath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent No.1, Sri A.P. Suresh, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education appearing for the respondent No.2, Smt. K. Kalpana, learned counsel representing Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, appearing for respondent No.3. Inspite of service of notice, none entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. Perused the record.

The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner passed 10th class from Sri Chaitanya School, Suryapet in the year 2020 and thereafter joined in Polytechnic College, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and passed out in April, 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner secured rank No.423 (integrated rank 1597.00) and was allotted a seat in Gokaraju Gangaraju Institute of Engineering and Technology in Computer Science and Engineering (Data Sciences) (CSD) under EWS, EEN UR category. Since the petitioner did his polytechnic, he got admitted directly to the second year of engineering and passed out in June, 2026. The petitioner was allotted a seat under economically backward class category. The petitioner was entertained for a fee reimbursement and accordingly for the years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, amounts of Rs.35,000/- each was sanctioned. Though an amount of Rs.35,000/- was sanctioned for the final year, the said amount was not remitted by the government to the college. On 07.10.2026, the college issued one of its certificates covering all three years of his study. Consequent upon completion of his engineering, the petitioner requested the respondent college to return his original certificates but the certificates were not returned to the petitioner on the ground that fee reimbursement which he was entitled to was not credited by the official respondents by relying upon the guidelines issued by the Finance (SCSDF & STSDF) Department vide U.O.No.27000860/A/97/ SCSDF/202, dated 06.09.2024. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the AICTE, vide Lr.No.1-101/PG/AICTE/Regulation/2019, dated 29.03.2019 and the Telangana State Council of Higher Education by Lr.No.TSCHE/Fee Reimbursement/2024, dated 23.02.2024, have directed the Directors/Principals and Registrars of all the universities not to withhold or retain the original certificates of students and not to insist upon payment of fees from students who are eligible for fee reimbursement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that as a result of the action of respondent No.4-college in withholding the original certificates, the petitioner was irretrievably deprived of the opportunity to submit applications for further studies. The petitioner is not in a financial position to pay the amount demanded by respondent No.4. He further submits that the action of respondent No.4 in withholding the original certificates of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel further submitted that the present writ petition is covered by order in Chenna Vignan and 38 others v. The State of Telangana represented by its Chief Secretary^{11.TSHC: W.P.No.18090 of 2026 decided on 02.07.2026}. Therefore, he seeks a direction to respondent No.4 to forthwith return the petitioner's original certificates.

Mr. K.Sharath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent No.1, Sri A.P. Suresh, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education appearing for the respondent No.2, Smt. K. Kalpana, learned counsel representing Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, appearing for respondent No.3 did not seriously dispute for return of original certificates of the petitioner.

Now the only point for determination is: Whether the petitioner is entitled for return of his original certificates from respondent No.4-college?

It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed his studies in respondent No.4-college and his original certificates are in the custody of the said college. A bare perusal of the Lr.No.1-101/PG/AICTE/Regulation/2019, dated 29.03.2019 issued by the AICTE and Lr.No.TSCHE/Fee Reimbursement/2024, dated 23.02.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telangana State Council of Higher Education, reveals that specific instructions were issued directing all affiliated private colleges not to insist upon payment of tuition fees from students, who are eligible for the fee reimbursement from the State Government. Further, as per the guidelines of UGC, no college is entitled to withhold or refuse to return any documents, including degree or diploma certificates or any other awards, deposited with it by students for the purpose of seeking admission.

The certificates, being personal and academic credentials, are undoubtedly the exclusive property of the petitioners. In such circumstances, respondent No.4-college has no authority whatsoever to retain the said certificates and the retention of the petitioner's original certificates by respondent No.4 is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained. Even assuming that the college has any monetary claim against the petitioner, withholding his original certificates cannot be adopted as a mode of enforcing such claim. The proper remedy, if any available to the college is to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of its dues and not by depriving the petitioner of his rightful original certificates as held by this Court in Chenna Vignan's case (supra).

For the foregoing discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed, directing respondent No.4 to forthwith return the original certificates of the petitioner to him. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.