Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Karthikeya Degree College vs The State Of Ap on 25 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION No. 14827 OF 2025
Between:
M KARTHIKEYA DEGREE COLLEGE, SANTHAMAGURU (VIL & MDL)
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY & CORRESPONDENT,
P. YASHODA SIVA REDDY S/O VENKATA SESHAIAH PAPIJENNI AGED
50 YRS. AND OTHERS
.... Petitioners
AND
THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P. AND OTHERS
.... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.07.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No
_______________________________
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
+ WRIT PETITION No.14827 of 2025
% 25.07.2025
Between:
M KARTHIKEYA DEGREE COLLEGE, SANTHAMAGURU (VIL & MDL)
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY & CORRESPONDENT,
P. YASHODA SIVA REDDY S/O VENKATA SESHAIAH PAPIJENNI AGED
50 YRS. AND OTHERS.
.... Petitioners
AND
THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P. AND OTHERS
.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Smt. Y. Anupama Devi, learned Counsel
for the Writ Petitioners
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned
Advocate General briefed by Sri M.
Chalapathi, learned Standing Counsel for
Respondent Nos.2 & 3
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2002) 8 SCC 481
2. (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 103; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 202; 2023/DHC/000380
(Neutral Citation) (W.P.(C) 584/2023, decided on 17.01.2023)
3. 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 2660 (W.P. (C) No.1275 of 2017, decided on
20.02.2017)
4. 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 12212
5. MANU/OR/0274/2020 (W.P.(C) No. 20027 of 2020, decided on
16.09.2020)
6. (2019) 2 KHC 669; MANU/KE/1608/2019
3
7. 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 5165
8. 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1478 (W.P.No.14468 of 2023, decided on
03.07.2023)
9. MANU/PH/2282/2023; 2023:PHHC:124007 (Neutral Citation)
10. (2013) 1 SCC 223
4
APHC010298342025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 14827/2025
Between:
1. KARTHIKEYA DEGREE COLLEGE, SANTHAMAGURU (VIL AND
MDL) PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND
CORRESPONDENT, P. YASHODA SIVA REDDY S/O VENKATA
SESHAIAH PAPIJENNI AGED 50 YRS.
2. SRI GOWTHAMI DEGREE COLLEGE,, YARRAGONDAPALEM (VIL
AND MDL) PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND
CORRESPONDENT, KANUMALLA GUNDA REDDY S/O PITCHI
REDDY, AGED 50 YRS,
3. SRI GOWTHAMI DEGREE COLLEGE,, SANTHANUTHALAPADU (VIL
AND MDL) PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND
CORRESPONDENT, KANUMALLA GUNDA REDDY S/O PITCHI
REDDY, AGED 50 YRS,
4. SRI GOWTHAMI DEGREE COLLEGE,, DONAKONDA (VIL AND MDL)
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND
CORRESPONDENT, KANUMALLA GUNDA REDDY S/O PITCHI
REDDY, AGED 50 YRS,
5. SRI GOWTHAMI DEGREE COLLEGE,, DARSI (VIL AND MDL)
PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND
CORRESPONDENT, KANUMALLA GUNDA REDDY S/O PITCHI
REDDY, AGED 50 YRS,
6. SRI GOWTHAMI DEGREE COLLEGE,, CHIMAKURTHY (VIL AND
MDL) PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND
5
CORRESPONDENT, KANUMALLA GUNDA REDDY S/O PITCHI
REDDY, AGED 50 YRS,
7. MAHATMA GANDHI COLLEGE,, GUNTUR- (VIL AND MDL) GUNTUR
DISTRICT REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, KANUMALLA GUNDA REDDY
S/O PITCHI REDDY, AGED 50 YRS
8. SSR DEGREE COLLEGE, MARKAPUR( VIL AND MDL) PRAKASAM
DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT,
KANUMALLA GUNDA REDDY S/O PITCHI REDDY, AGED 50 YRS,
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.A.P.
2. ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
NAGARJUNANAGAR VILLAGE, GUNTUR,
3. THE ADDL CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, ACHARYA
NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, NAGARJUNA NAGAR VILLAGE,
GUNTUR .A.P.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Y ANUPAMA DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
2. M.CHALAPATHI SC For Nagarjuna University
The Court made the following:
6
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 14827/2025
ORDER:
Heard Smt. Y. Anupama Devi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General briefed by
Sri M. Chalapathi, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated above it is therefore prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and
3rdRespondents issued Proc.No.ANU/ACE’s office/UG
Exams/2025 dated 7-5-2025 and not declared the Result of
the petitioners College Degree 6thsemester 2022-2025
batch Examinations results by issuing Marks Memos to the
Petitioners Degree Colleges as being illegal, arbitrary,
improper unjust and violate of Articles 14,19 and 21 of
Constitution of India, framed thereunder and the Andhra
Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 and consequently direct the
Respondents forthwith to Suspend the operation of the
Proc.No.ANU/ACE’s office/UG Exams/2025 dated 7-5-
2025 while declare results of the 6th semester Degree
Examination by issuing Marks Memos for the academic
session 2022-2025 to the petitioners Degree Colleges and
pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case.”
Submissions of Writ Petitioners/Degree Colleges:
3. The Petitioners are the Degree Colleges in various districts of Andhra
Pradesh. All these Colleges are affiliated to Acharya Nagarjuna University
(Respondent No.2). These Colleges have filed the present Writ Petition
seeking a Writ of Mandamus against Respondent Nos.2 & 3 for declaration of
results of Final Year/3rdYear Degree Examinations (VIth Semester 2022-2025).
7
4. Smt. Y. Anupama Devi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would
submit that the Writ Petitioner Colleges have fallen due to the Respondent
No.2 (University) some arrears of amounts. The primary contention put forth
by the Writ Petitioner Colleges for non-remittance of arrears due to the
University is because the Government of Andhra Pradesh had failed to
disburse the Scholarships on a timely basis.
5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that
the Government of Andhra Pradesh has introduced a Scheme to reimburse
the Tuition Fee of the Students who got admission in various degree colleges.
6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that
for the past few years, the Tuition Fee was remitted by the Government into
the bank accounts of the parents of the Students and parents have committed
default of remitting the fee and huge arrears have mounted. This apart, even
for the recent Academic Years, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has not
been remitting the fee within time.
7. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner Colleges would also
contend that even if there are dues that are to be paid by the Colleges to the
University, that by itself cannot be a reason to withhold the result of the
Students, inasmuch as the career of the Students is involved and delay in
publication of result would put the Students to great prejudice. It is further
contended that when the Petitioner Colleges approached the Respondent
No.3 (Additional Controller of Examination), the Writ Petitioner Colleges were
informed that the said results would be released only after payment of the
8
Affiliation Fees and other dues for the Academic Year 2024-2025. It is
contended that the Writ Petitioner Colleges have complied with all the
conditions including payment of Affiliation Fee to the University. It is submitted
that there is some delay in remitting this Fee, which is primarily due to the
Non-disbursement of Scholarships by the Government for the Academic Year
2024-2025 and that due to this Non-disbursement, the Writ Petitioners
suffered financial difficulty that has severely impacted the functioning of the
Colleges.
8. It is submitted that the withholding of the result of the Students has
already deprived them of completing their backlog subjects.
Submissions by the Respondent – University:
9. Respondent No.2 – University and Respondent No.3 – the Additional
Controller of Examinations of Respondent No.2 – University have filed a
common Counter-Affidavit on 01.07.2025.
10. It is stated in the Counter-Affidavit that the Writ Petitioners have
suppressed the real facts and have presented a distorted picture; that, with an
intent to mislead this Court, the present Writ Petition is filed under the guise of
acting in the interest and welfare of Students; that the Petitioners are in default
regarding the payment of Affiliation Fees for previous Academic Years,
despite having admitted Students in those years; and that the Petitioners have
not furnished the Examination-Galleys nor have they deposited the full
Examination Fees collected from the Students; that only a Nominal Token Fee
has been made by the Writ Petitioners; that the University has issued
9
Notification No.ANU/UG/Regular Exams/2025, dated 01.02.2025, requiring all
the Affiliated Colleges to submit valid Affiliation Orders along with the list of
approved Courses, however, for reasons best known to the Petitioners, they
have not submitted the required information; that the Writ Petitioners have
violated the mandatory requirements of securing affiliation and remittance of
requisite Affiliation Fee for the Academic Year 2024-2025; that all the
Petitioners put together are due to the University a sum of Rs.32,32,089 as on
date; that the Petitioner Colleges have failed to undergo inspection by expert
Committees as mandated under Clause 7 (2) (b) of the Nagarjuna University
Regulations, 2018, for verification of human resources and infrastructural
facilities; that the Writ Petitioners have failed to submit an Action Taken
Report demonstrating the compliance with the recommendations of such
Inspection Committees.
11. It is further stated in the Counter-Affidavit that the Writ Petitioners have,
in fact, collected the Examination Fee from the Students but have failed to
remit the same in favour of the Respondent University except the remittance
of a ‘Nominal Token Amount’; that it is specifically averred by the Respondent
University that lack of proper affiliation has far-reaching adverse
consequences on the Students who are intending to pursue Higher Education
either abroad or in India. It is also submitted that lack of affiliation would create
severe hardship to the Students inasmuch as the Qualifications obtained by
them would not be recognized without there being affiliation to the respective
Colleges. However, the Respondents have also stated in the Counter-Affidavit
10
that the Writ Petitioners have received a substantial amount in terms of the
Scholarships; that the Government has reimbursed an amount of
Rs.7,93,17,000/- in terms of Scholarship for the Academic Years 2021-2022 to
2024-2025, which is in sharp contrast to the outstanding affiliation dues of
Rs.32,32,089/- owed to the Respondent University.
12. It is also contended that the plea raised by the Writ Petitioners that the
Students could not clear their backlogs due to the inaction of the Respondent
University is factually incorrect, inasmuch as the VIth Semester Examination
consisted solely of a viva-voce component in which the success is 100%. It is,
therefore, contended that the plea of the Writ Petitioner Colleges that Students
could not clear their backlogs is not only factually incorrect but also
misleading.
13. Para 24 of the Counter-Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder:
“It is submitted that, as per the said Notification
dated 01.02.2025, the petitioner colleges were required to
remit the Examination Fee of Rs.470/-, Original Degree
Certificate Fee of Rs.1,045/-, and Consolidated Marks
Memo Fee of Rs.1,200/-, totaling Rs.2,715/- per student,
on or before 24.02.2025. In cases of delayed payment, a
late fee of Rs.100/- per student was permitted, with the
extended deadline being 28.02.2025. Additionally, the last
date for submission of examination galleys, in triplicate,
along with the necessary documentation including
affiliation orders for the academic year 2024-2025, was
03.03.2025. The internship Viva-Voce examinations for VI
Semester Regular (Y22 Batch) and Supplementary
candidates (Y20 and Y21 Batches) were scheduled to be
conducted from 25.03.2025 to 01.04.2025. Despite these
clearly stipulated timelines, the petitioner institutions failed
to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements.”
11
14. In Para 20 of the Counter-Affidavit, the Respondent University has
submitted the details of arrears in a tabular form. The said table is usefully
extracted hereunder:
As per
No. of Examination
receipts
students fee due
exhibited Remaining
Sl. Petitioner College appeared including
by the due Rs.
No in 6th OD & CML
Petitioner
semester fee
Colleges
Karthikeya Degree
1. 24 65,160 65,160 0
College, Prakasam Dist.
Sri Gowthami Degree
College,
2. 94 2,55,210 1,42,410 1,12,800
Yarragondapalem,
Prakasam Dist
Sri Gowthami Degree
College,
3. 0 0 0 0
Santhanuthalapadu,
Prakasam Dist
Sri Gowthami Degree
4. College, Donakonda, 19 51,585 32,755 18,830
Prakasam Dist
Sri Gowthami Degree
5. College, Darsi, 126 3,42,090 1,92,045 1,50,045
Prakasam Dist.
Sri Gowthami Degree
6. College, Chimakurthy, 32 86,880 41,095 45,785
Prakasam Dist
Mahatma Gandhi
7. 78 2,11,770 2,11,770 0
College, Guntur
SSR Degree College,
8. Markapur, Prakasam 78 2,11,770 1,18,170 93,600
Dist.
Total 451 12,24,465 8,03,405 3,21,061
15. It has been specifically stated in Para 24 of the Counter-Affidavit that
the Writ Petitioner Colleges have not even obtained affiliation for the
Academic Years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. It is also
stated that the proof of remittance of Affiliation Fees exhibited by the Petitioner
Colleges pertains only to Karthikeya Degree College, Prakasam District;
Mahatama Gandhi College, Guntur; and Sri Gowthami Degree College, Darsi,
12
only for the Academic Year 2021-2022 and that none of the other Petitioner
Colleges have produced any Affiliation Fee Receipts for the Academic Years
stated above. It is also contended that by willful default on the part of the Writ
Petitioners, the said Writ Petitioners have irresponsibly jeopardized and
compromised with the Academic interest and future prospects of the Students.
Rejoinder by Writ Petitioners/Colleges:
16. In the Rejoinder filed by the Writ Petitioners, it has been stated that with
regard to the College Tuition Fee for the Academic Years 2023-2024 and
2024-2025, the Government has deposited the Tuition Fee only in respect of
the First Quarter for both the Academic Years. In the other words, the
Government had deposited the Tuition Fee of the Students for the First
Quarter of the Academic Year 2023-2024 and also First Quarter of the
Academic Year 2024-2025. It is also stated in the Rejoinder that due to the
non-payment of Fee for three Quarters consequently for both the Academic
Years, the Writ Petitioners are suffering financial constraint, which is the
reason for non-payment of Affiliation Fee.
Analysis:
17. In the light of the above contentions, the following issues fall for
consideration before this Court:
i. Whether the University is entitled to withhold the results of the
Students?
ii. Whether the career and the future prospects of the Students
would in any way be affected due to the coercive action adopted
13by the University by withholding the Viva-voce results of the
Students with a condition to publish the result only when dues are
cleared by the Writ Petitioner Colleges?
iii. Whether the Educational Careers pursued by the Students and
their ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
could be treated as ‘Merchandise’ that can be used as objects of
barter-trade either by the Colleges or by the Universities?
iv. Who is the real victim? Whether the Writ Petitioner Colleges? Or
Whether it is the Respondent University? Or Whether the Student
Community studying in the Writ Petitioner Colleges?
v. Whether the impugned action of the University in withholding the
result of the Viva-voce Examinations of the Students studying in
the Writ Petitioner Colleges is opposed to Public Policy?
18. The facts, as discussed hereinabove, are not in dispute except with
regard to the reimbursement of the Scholarship Fee. While the Writ Petitioner
Colleges, on the one hand, cry foul with regard to the financial constraints
suffered by them on account of the non-reimbursement of the Scholarship
Fee, the Respondent University, on the other hand, cries foul against the Writ
Petitioner Colleges for non-clearance of arrears due to the University under
various heads.
19. One admitted fact that stares in the face of the Writ Petitioner Colleges
as well as the Respondent University is that the result of the Viva-voce
Examination in respect of the VIth Semester for the Academic Years 2022-
14
2025 of the Students studying in the Writ Petitioner Colleges have been
withheld by the Respondent University. None can deny the fact that the
precipitative casualties emanating out of this pernicious-practice are the
careers and the future prospects of the innocent Students. The Writ
Petitioners as well as the Respondents have consciously put the careers and
the future prospects of the Students as a bait to bargain with each other.
20. Even the judicial dicta handed down by the hierarchy of Constitutional
Courts do not seem to deter either the Writ Petitioner Colleges or the
Respondent University with regard to withholding of the result of the Viva-voce
Examinations.
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as various High Courts of this Country,
have placed the careers and future prospects of Students pursuing various
courses in a pivotal position by according paramount importance. Way back in
the year 2002, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that education is essentially
carried out with a charitable objective, treating it as a kind of service to the
community. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka : (2002) 8 SCC
481, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 20, has held as under:
“20. Article 19(1)(g) employs four expressions viz.
profession, occupation, trade and business. Their fields
may overlap, but each of them does have a content of its
own. Education is per se regarded as an activity that is
charitable in nature (see State of Bombay v. R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwala [AIR 1957 SC 699 : 1957 SCR 874] ).
Education has so far not been regarded as a trade or
business where profit is the motive. Even if there is any
doubt about whether education is a profession or not, it
does appear that education will fall within the meaning of
the expression “occupation”. Article 19(1)(g) uses the four
expressions so as to cover all activities of a citizen in
respect of which income or profit is generated, and which
15can consequently be regulated under Article 19(6).
In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, at p.
1650, “occupation” is, inter alia, defined as “an activity in
which one engages” or “a craft, trade, profession or other
means of earning a living.”
22. While reiterating this principle that Education is a charity, which is a kind
of community service, a learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, in Master Prabhnoor Singh Virdi (Minor son) through Karamjeet
Singh Virdi (Father) vs The Indian School & Anr., (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 103;
2023 SCC OnLine Del 202; 2023/DHC/000380 (Neutral Citation) (W.P.(C)
584/2023, decided on 17.01.2023), held in paras 18 and 23 as under:
“18.Thus, a child cannot be made to suffer and not
be allowed to attend classes or barred from taking
examinations in the middle of an academic session on the
ground of non-payment of fees. Education is the
foundation, which shapes the future of a child and
which in turn shapes the future of the society in
general. Therefore, not allowing a student to take
examinations, especially the Board Examinations,
would be infringement of the rights of a child akin to
Right to Life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Supreme Court has expanded
the rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India and
education is certainly one of the important rights
which would be encompassed under right to life. In
furtherance of the same, Article 21A of the
Constitution of India provides for Right to Education,
wherein the State has been ordained to provide free
and compulsory education to all children of the age of
6 to 14 years. (emphasis supplied).
23.Therefore, the rights of a child to education has
to be balanced with the rights of the school under the
DSER, 1973. If the petitioner is unable to pay the fees of
the school, the petitioner certainly does not have a right to
continue education in the school in question. However, the
petitioner cannot be tormented in this manner in the
middle of the academic session. The academic year of the
petitioner cannot be allowed to be wasted, since the
current academic session is almost at its end. Further, it is
also pertinent to note that the petitioner is currently in
Class 10th, for which registration with the CBSE for
16
appearing in Class 10th Board Examination has already
taken place. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner
cannot be directed to take admission in a new school,
when the current academic session has almost ended and
the Board Examinations are round the corner. Not allowing
the petitioner to take up the Board Examinations would put
the petitioner at a great hardship and the petitioner would
suffer irreparable harm if he is not allowed to take up the
examination. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is deemed expedient
that the prayers as made in the present writ petition are
allowed and the petitioner child is permitted to take the
Class 10th Board Examinations.”
23. The learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in
Shirren M.T. and Others vs State of Kerala : 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 2660
(W.P. (C) No.1275 of 2017, decided on 20.02.2017), held in para 10 as
under:
“10. The case of the College is that since the
petitioners have not fulfilled their bonded obligation, the
College is entitled to withhold their certificates. The
petitioners do not admit their liability. In other words, the
certificates of the petitioners are withheld by the College
for enforcing a disputed liability. Even assuming that the
agreement/bond executed by the petitioners in favour of
the College authorising the College to withhold their
certificates is not void for want of consideration, the
question arises is whether the certificates of the petitioners
can be withheld for enforcing a disputed liability…
….Certificates of education/qualification are very
important documents as far as students are
concerned. Non availability of the certificates
establishing educational qualifications may result in
deleterious consequences as far as students are
concerned, for, the same are the first and foremost
documents insisted for employment and higher
studies. It is trite that whatever tends to injustice of
operation, restraint of legal rights, whatever tends to
the obstruction of justice and whatever is against the
morals can be said to be against public policy. In
other words, matters which concern the public good
and the public interest connotes the public policy.
[See P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394].
It is also trite that the principles governing public
policy are capable, on proper occasion, of expansion
17or modification and the court in a given case is
empowered to declare a practice as opposed to public
policy in consonance with public conscience and in
keeping with public good and public interest. [See
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath
Ganguly [(1986) 3 SCC 156] and State of Rajasthan v.
Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77]. The agreements
obtained by the College from the petitioners authorising
them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners for
payment of the amounts covered by the bonds, if any,
executed by the petitioners, cannot be accepted as an
approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is
unethical. Further, agreements of that nature are against
public good and public interest as well. In the
circumstances, even assuming that the agreement/bond
executed by the petitioners in favour of the College
authorising them to withhold their certificates is not void for
want of consideration, the same is void as opposed to
public policy, in the light of Section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act.” (emphasis supplied)
24. The above judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by
the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in W.A.No.493 of
2017, vide order dated 22.03.2017 : 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 12212.
25. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, in Dipesh Ku.
Padhihari vs Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital and Others,
MANU/OR/0274/2020 (W.P.(C) No. 20027 of 2020, decided on 16.09.2020),
held as under:
“Even the University Grants Commission (UGC)
has issued warning to universities’ and colleges
against retention of original documents of the
admitted students No institutions can take any
original certificate into their custody to use it as a tool
to bargain or threaten the students with some
unknown or disputed claims. In similar vein, All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has also
issued instructions to all the technical institutions in
the country not to retain original certificates of the
students. Hence, the practice of withholding original
Certificates of the students and not returning them to
18the students is completely illegal as the certificates
are the most valuable property of the students, it
cannot be withheld by the college for any reasons, in
violation of rule of law. (emphasis supplied)
Similar sentiments have succinctly echoed by
Madras High Court in Muthukamatchi Vrs. Director of
Technical Education, Anna University, Guindy,
Chennai [W.P.(MD) No.14394 of 2012 (Madras High
Court)], which has categorically held that the certificates
are not fixed deposit receipts on which, the college can
claim a general lien. It is a valuable property of every
student. Hence, the certificates cannot be allowed to be
retained at any rate.”
26. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Dipesh Ku.
Padhihari vs Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital and Others,
MANU/OR/0274/2020 (W.P.(C) No. 20027 of 2020, decided on 16.09.2020)
has also held that withholding of the hard-earned certificates of the Students,
at the whims and fancies of the Colleges do not portray a good picture of the
Education System in the Country.
27. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Neethu J. vs. State of
Kerala and Ors. : (2019) 2 KHC 669; MANU/KE/1608/2019, held as under:
“…the original documents of the student are not
given by her as a collateral security for ensuring payment
of liquidated damages. The documents of a student are
required by the student for her professional and
career prospects and those are all personal
documents which will not earn any amount to
respondents 4 and 5, and it cannot be utilized by the said
respondents for the purpose of realizing the alleged
liquidated damages by selling, mortgaging or in any
manner providing the same as a security. Moreover, the
respondents are unable to show any Statute enabling the
management to detain personal certificates of a student
other than the clause contained under Ext. R5(a).
…by providing such a clause under Ext. R5(a)
Government Order, a coercive tactics is employed against
the student to realize money from the student, without
even adjudicating the issue with respect to any liquidated
damages suffered by the management. Looking at that
19angle, such a clause contained under the Government
Order is against the public policy liable to be interfered
with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.” (emphasis supplied).
28. In S. Muthukamatchi vs The Director of Technical Education, Anna
University : 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 5165, the Madras Bench of the Hon’ble
High Court of Madras had categorically held that the Certificates of a Student
are his or her property, and that the College must not detain the Certificates
under any circumstances. Even if the College has any monetary claim,
withholding the Certificates is not the method by which the claim can be
enforced, because there is no lien on the Certificates of the Students by the
College.
29. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Doolla Mahesh Yadav vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh : 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1478 (W.P.No.14468 of
2023, decided on 03.07.2023) held as under:
“9. The admitted fact is that the petitioner submitted
his certificates at the time of admission to the respondent
No. 4-Institution. It is also a fact that the petitioner was
admitted into the respondent No. 4 due to the fee
reimbursement because he hails from Backward
Community i.e. BC-D category and his family status
purely depends on the claim for pursuing the
education but in view of the withdrawal of the
reimbursement scheme for PG students, the petitioner
was constrained to leave the Institution. In such an
event which is not in the control the petitioner and in
view of the withdrawal of the reimbursement scheme
by the respondent No. 1/State, the petitioner cannot
be penalized even the reason by the College for
collecting any amount due from the petitioner is by
other means, it cannot be by way of withholding the
certificates at the cause of life of the student.
Therefore, in view of the submissions made, the
respondents are directed to release the certificates of the
petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order.” (emphasis supplied)
20
30. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Meena Kumari vs State of Punjab and Others :
MANU/PH/2282/2023; 2023:PHHC:124007 (Neutral Citation), held in para
14 as under:
“14. The case of the petitioner is on a higher footing
than the case of the petitioners in the above two cases
inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the petitioner(s)
belong to Scheduled Castes Community and are
covered under the Post Matriculation Scholarship
Scheme and are not required to pay the fee, on
account of non-payment of which, the respondent
No.3-University has withheld the result/original
detailed marks certificate/degree/Migration Certificate
and other documents. The said payment has to be
made by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 and
respondent No.4 in turn has to seek reimbursement of
the same from the State Government. On account of
the inter se dispute between respondent No.4,
respondent No.3 and the State, the petitioner(s) who
are bona fide students cannot be made scapegoats. In
case, the documents i.e., result/original detailed
marks certificate/degree/Migration Certificate and
other documents of the petitioner are not released,
then the petitioner(s) would suffer irreparable loss and
would not be able to pursue their further studies.
Even, in case some money is due from the
petitioner(s), then also, respondent Nos.3 and 4
cannot withhold the result/original detailed marks
certificate/degree/Migration Certificate and other
documents of the petitioner and the only remedy with
them is to institute appropriate proceedings for
recovery of money.” (emphasis supplied)
31. The above-cited Judgments would indicate that the career and future
prospects of Students have been placed on a pedestal, keeping them beyond
the reach of Colleges and Universities. Although the cases cited hereinabove
deal with the withholding of various certificates belonging to Students for
various reasons, the Judicial Principles that can be deduced from the
21
aforementioned decisions are that the career and future prospects of Students
are made sacrosanct and immutable by elevating them to the level of a
Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
32. If the withholding of Students’ Certificates is one of the modes adopted
either by the Universities or the Colleges, such a practice has been treated as
pernicious and perverse and accordingly deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as various High Courts on multiple occasions. Withholding of the
result by the University, as in the present case, is also one such nuance
inasmuch as the end result is that the Student Community would suffer. There
is not much difference between the withholding of results, as in the present
case, and the withholding of Students’ Certificates, inasmuch as both actions
seek to achieve the same affect which would eventually mar the careers and
future prospects of the innocent Students for no fault of theirs.
33. The dispute is essentially between the Colleges and the University,
insofar as the recovery of money is concerned. Unfortunately, both have
chosen to treat the careers and future prospects of the students as
‘merchandise’, which ought not to have been done at all. This extreme and
perverse method adopted by the University shakes the ethical foundations of
our educational system and also the very object for which the University has
been founded. The University is a temple of higher learning, with its
paramount, if not the sole object is to impart Education. The purpose of
imparting Education is for shaping the careers and future of the Students,
which is also the part of Nation-building. It appears to this Court that the
22
whereas, the Respondent University seem to have manifestly forgotten its
primordial and indispensable function of imparting education, as is evident
from the impugned action it has resorted to.
34. It is not as if the Court is oblivious of the recoveries that the Respondent
ought to make from the Writ Petitioner Colleges. The University could have
adopted even the extreme coercive method to compel the Colleges to
cough-up the arrears, without using the examinations results of the Students
as a ‘merchandise’ to bargain with the Colleges. After all, these innocent
Students have nothing to do with this dispute and are in no way a part of this
dispute.
35. The Hon’ble Apex Court has sounded a word of caution in the case of
National Council of Teacher Education and Another vs. Veenu’s Public
Education Society and Others ; (2013) 1 SCC 223, in para 3, as under:
“3. It is to be clearly stated that an institution that is
engaged or interested in getting involved in imparting a
course for training has to obey the command of law in
letter and spirit. There cannot be any deviation. But,
unfortunately, some of the institutions flagrantly violate the
norms with adamantine audacity and seek indulgence of
the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy for the
students or financial constraint of the institution or they
have been inappropriately treated by the statutory
regulatory bodies. None of these grounds justify deviation.
The case at hand graphically depicts deviations but the
High Court, putting the blame on the statutory authority
has granted relief to the respondent institution which is
impermissible.”
36. Any number of judicial dicta handed down by the Courts of law do not
tend to cause even a dent in the pachydermic approach of the University.
23
37. In view of the categorical directions of various High Courts and the
Hon’ble Apex Court to the effect that the Certificates of the Students cannot
be withheld at any cost, since it affects the careers of the Students, it appears
that various institutions, including the State-run Institutions, have devised an
ingenious method of “Official Blackmail” by withholding the results of the
Students, although the Students did not partake in the present cause of
action.
38. In the present case, the Writ Petitioner Colleges have claimed
themselves to be the victims of high-handedness on the part of the University.
The University, on the other hand, claims to be the victim of non-payment of
arrears due to it from the Writ Petitioner Colleges. However, the real adverse
effect has befallen on the Students due to the withholding of their results,
while admittedly, the Students are the real innocent victims.
39. In the ultimate analysis, this Court would have no hesitation to hold that
the University is not entitled to withhold the Viva-voce Examination results of
the Students on the ground that the Colleges have not cleared the arrears due
to the University. The impugned action would affect only one class, namely,
the Student Community, thereby marring their careers and future prospects,
which is a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. There is no doubt that the Writ Petitioner Colleges, as well as the
University, have treated the careers and future prospects of the Students as
‘Items of Merchandise’ which can be traded or used for blackmail.
24
40. In view of the law laid down, as discussed above, it is held that the
impugned action of the Respondent University in withholding the result of the
Viva-voce Examination is not only opposed to public policy but is also
unethical and grossly perverse. It is unfortunate that a Public Institution like
that of the University has resorted to this method without even realizing the
fact that the ultimate victims would be the Students who are pursuing their
courses, inasmuch as the adverse impact that would befall upon the Student
Community is of an irreversible nature.
41. At this stage, it is clarified that this Court has not come to the rescue of
the Writ Petitioner Colleges in any manner. If there are any arrears, the
Respondent University is certainly at liberty to initiate any kind of extreme
measure or step to compel them to clear the dues. Withholding of Affiliation
and several other methods may be initiated well in advance and any such
coercive and precipitative action that is proposed to be initiated by the
University shall not have any adverse bearing on the careers and future
prospects of the Students who are pursuing Courses in the Colleges.
Therefore, the University is at liberty to initiate any coercive step to recover its
arrears, keeping in mind the caution indicated as regards the affect that ought
not to befall upon the careers of the Students.
43. The Respondent University is, therefore, directed to forthwith release
the results of the Viva-voce Examination of the Students pursuing various
Courses in the Writ Petitioner Colleges within two (02) days from today,
disobedience of which shall be viewed by this Court seriously.
25
44 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated. No
order as to costs.
45. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 25.07.2025
Note: Issue CC today
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.DSV
26
32
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.14827 of 2025
Dt: 25.07.2025
Note: Issue CC today
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.DSV
[ad_1]
Source link