Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1708 (TS)

D. Vivek Chary v. State of Telangana

2025-12-05

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri Srikanth Chinthala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner 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 2 nd Respondent in considering the Petitioner’s application dated 18.01.2025 against the Respondent No.4 for not issuing the SSC Original Certificate to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, against the law and also against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to issue/provide SSC Original Certificate to the Petitioner forthwith…” 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under: i) The petitioner’s father succumbed to COVID-19 on 03.05.2021. Due to severe financial hardship, the petitioner’s mother worked as a daily-wage labourer to sustain the family. Despite these constraints, the petitioner’s mother admitted both children, including the petitioner, into the 4 th respondent- School, which granted a fee concession by reducing the annual fee from Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-. ii) The petitioner diligently completed his 10 th class during the academic year 2023–2024, and thereafter joined Intermediate College. When the petitioner’s present college insisted on submission of the SSC Aggregate Marks Memo, the petitioner approached the 4 th respondent for issuance of the same. However, the 4 th respondent refused to furnish the memo and demanded an additional amount of Rs. 8,000/-, which had never been disclosed at any earlier stage. iii) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.01.2025 to the 2 nd respondent seeking intervention, however no action had been taken. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The relevant portion of the representation submitted by the petitioner addressed to the respondent No.4 dated 18.01.2025 is extracted hereunder: “…I submit to you that Mr. Donthoju Vivek Chary joined Intermediate at Sri Vasistha Junior College, MPC Course to continue his further studies. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The relevant portion of the representation submitted by the petitioner addressed to the respondent No.4 dated 18.01.2025 is extracted hereunder: “…I submit to you that Mr. Donthoju Vivek Chary joined Intermediate at Sri Vasistha Junior College, MPC Course to continue his further studies. For his admission in the above mentioned College he need to submit all the necessary documents and among which the SSC Marks memo issued by the authority which is present with the school management is also to be submitted by him at the college. In regard to obtain his SSC Marks memo which is present with the school management, Mr. Donthoju Vivek Chary approached the school. For his sudden surprise and shock the school management refused to provide his SSC Marks Memo and demanded to pay the School fees of Rs.8,000/- Eight Thousand Rupees showing it as a balance and the school management also informed me that the SSC Marks memo of Mr. Donthoju Vivek Chary will be upheld by the school as surety until the amount is paid. I submit to you that taking the advantage of the situation now and demanding to pay the extra fees and upholding the SSC Marks Memo of Mr. Donthoju Vivek Chary by the school management is illegal and beyond the morals of the society. The school management who is having knowledge about my situation and demanding me to pay an extra amount is unethical. I submit to you that, on Date: 16.12.2024 I approached an advocate and sent a legal notice to the school management demanding to provide the SSC marks memo of my son, which is received by the school management on Date: 26.12.2024 and they did not respond till now. I request your kind intervention in reducing my burden and taking legal action against the School management for the illegal upholding of my son's SSC Certificates…” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that inspite of repeated representations submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.4 seeking issuance of the SSC Original Certificate to the petitioner, the respondents had not considered the said representations as on date. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that inspite of repeated representations submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.4 seeking issuance of the SSC Original Certificate to the petitioner, the respondents had not considered the said representations as on date. The respondents had returned most of the certificates of the petitioner herein except the SSC Original Certificate and in compliance to the directions of the Court dated 28.11.2025, the petitioner had taken out the personal notice to the respondent No.4 and the same had been duly served on the respondent No.4 through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due and a memo dated 02.12.2025 had been filed before this Court evidencing the same, duly enclosing the postal tracking consignment of the same with the status as ‘delivered’ to the respondent No.4 herein. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, upon instructions, brings to the notice of this Court that the respondent No.4-school is ready and willing to hand over the original SSC marks memo to the petitioner pertaining to Hall Ticket No.2423136095, upon the petitioner approaching the respondent No.4 institution. 7. The observations of various High Courts in the judgments pertaining to withholding of original certificates of the students by the Authorities concerned are extracted hereunder:- A. 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. 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 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. B. 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. C. 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 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 ." D. In the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate of Education & Ors. 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 ." D. In 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. I n view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the School Leaving Certificates cannot be withheld by the respondents." E. In S.Muthukamatchi 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. F. 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 W.P.No.2930 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022 and D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare, Hyderabad in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020 and also the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andhra 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. 8. Based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, this Court had allowed W.P.No.34185 of 2023 vide its order dated 03.06.2024 granting identical relief as granted in W.P.No.21137 of 2019. 9. 8. Based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, this Court had allowed W.P.No.34185 of 2023 vide its order dated 03.06.2024 granting identical relief as granted in W.P.No.21137 of 2019. 9. This Court opines that the 4 th respondent cannot withhold the original SSC Marks Memo of the petitioner pertaining to Hall Ticket No.2423136095 in view of the settled legal position as indicated in the various judgments(referred to and extracted above) 10. Taking into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, (c) The observations in the Judgments of the various High Courts (referred to and extracted above), on the subject issue pertaining to withholding of original certificates of the students, by the Authorities concerned. (d) The orders of this Court dated 07.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.18393 of 2025 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The relevant portion of the representation submitted by the petitioner addressed to the respondent No.4 dated 18.01.2025, (referred to and extracted above) (f) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos. 5 to 14 in the present order, The Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondent No.4 is directed to provide the petitioner’s SSC Original Certificate to the petitioner herein by duly taking into consideration the observations in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, upon the petitioner approaching the 4 th respondent herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.