WP/3976/2026 of Mrs. Purnima Jain Vs The Commissioner of Collegiate Education Govt on 20 April 2026

:ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief "fo lssue a Writ or order more paiicularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents more pafticularly respondents 1 to 3 in not taking action on respondent No.4 for highhandedly withholding the original ceftificates of the pelitioner as illegal, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondent No.4 college to release fofthwith all the original ceiificales of the petitioner. suspend the recognition/ticence if the 4th respondent college for arb rary and high handcd aclion and pass such olher

2. Heard M/s.Rahul Kandharkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 tvls.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4

3. Case of the petitioner is that at the time of admission into B.Com Course, in lhe college of 4'h respondent, she submitted all .,.

lust ce )uwad' Sndevr wp 3916_2026 her original certificates, including SSC Memo, lnle rmediate Marks [/lemo, Transfer Certificate, and the same were 'etained by the Management of respondent No.4-college- Later ; re discontinued her studies in the same year, due to personal family reasons and on 01 .01 .2025, she gave a representation for rettrr of her original certificates. But there was no response from the t spondent No 4, due to which she preferred to send a legal nct:e through her counsel to the respondent No.4. But the princ pal of the 4th respondent college, despite admitting that the 6 t titioner already notified to take back all her original certificates' lai :d to return the same-

4. However, taking undue advantage of the p€ litioner being a woman, 4th respondent harassed the petitioner st I ing that he will not return her original certifieates. lt is further subrr tted that the 4th respondent referred to some SOP best known t'r him which he adopts illegally and has harassed her to the exte rt possible and made the educational certificates as lien against th: alleged arrears of fees. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tll rt the petitioner requires her original certificates for her further car'::r and no dues are pending against her He further submits the I the action of ,,/

wp 1978 ',)A)6 respondent No.4 in withholding the original certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he seeks a direction to respondent No.4 to forthwith return the petitioner's original certificates.

6. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel representing on behalf of respondent No 4 submits that since the admission of the petitioner in the college of respondent No.4 pertains to the year 20 l I, it takes time to trace out the certificates of the petitioner and the college will return the original certificates as soon as possible when they are traced out.

Perused the record.

8. lt is an admitted fact that the original certificates of the petitioner referred to above were submitted before respondent No.4 at the time of admission and the petitioner had discontinued her B.Com course from respondent No.4-college. The said certificates, being personal and academic credentials, are undoubtedly the property of the petitioner. ln 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 l!nLce lurvadlSridcv wo 3976 2026 petitioner, withholding her original certificates canr r t 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 f rr recovery of its dues, but not retain the petitioner's original certificat rs. I For the foregoing discussion' this Writ Pet lion is allowed' directing respondent No.4 to return the original t;"rtificates of the petitioner to her wrthin a period of three (03) weekr; [rom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orrl rr as to costs' Pending miscellaneous applications, if ir ry, shall stand closed Sd,. ,.C SULEKHA DEVI ASSI: iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER V

1. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education G,r t, of Telangana, Vidhyabhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001.

2. Telangana Council of Higher Education, Opp. Mahavir tl spital, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028.

3. The District lntermediate Educatron Officer, Rarr ta Reddy District Kongarakalan lntegrated Collectorate Building , Rang a Reddy District 510

501.

4. The Principal, Jahnavi Junior Degree and PG Collel;r, 1st Floor, HMRL commercial complex, beside Fire station, opposi.r Paradise Metro, Secunderabad, Telangana 500003..

5. One CC to SRl. RAHUL KANDHARKAR, Advocate [OPIJ )]

6. Two CCs to GP FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the t;l rte of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. one CC to Ms.A.V.S.LAXMI, STANDING COUNSEI. [oPUC]

8. Two CD Copies \ To, DAN/PMK

L"

HIGH COURT DATED: 2010412026 (] C TODAY '\. 'tr',

ORDER

WP.No.3976 of 2026 o-\ BCrU ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ta r. #, \S] 1,L .:):- { I (

{ n?