Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 299
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Mohammed Sameena – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/608/2025
The withholding of degree certificates by a university due to internal disputes violates UGC guidelines and is deemed illegal and arbitrary.
Headnote:(A) Universities Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines - Degree issuance - Petitioners completed the MSIT programme but were denied degree certificates due to internal disputes among respondents - Court found the withholding of certificates illegal and arbitrary, violating UGC regulations that prohibit such actions based on fee dues. (Paras 15, 16)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the MSIT programme certificates to the petitioners within two weeks. (Paras 17)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners enrolled in the MSIT programme in 2019 and completed it in 2021 but were not issued degree certificates due to disputes over payments between the university and affiliated institutions. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the respondents' failure to issue certificates was unjust and contrary to UGC regulations, which protect students from administrative disputes. (Paras 15-16)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of withholding degree certificates and the accountability of the university in issuing certificates despite internal disputes. (Paras 10-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that students should not be penalized for the university's internal conflicts and that UGC guidelines must be adhered to in issuing certificates. (Paras 15)
Result: Writ Petition allowed; respondents directed to issue certificates within two weeks and pay exemplary costs of Rs.50,000.
ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7, Mohd. Abdul Quddus, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief, is that they have enrolled themselves for Master of Science & Information Technology (MSIT) programme of two year duration in furtherance of the notification issued by the 3rd respondent University during the year 2019 and completed the course by 2021.
3. Petitioners further contend that even though the petitioners have completed the course in the year 2021 and have been issued with no due certificate by the 3rd respondent University, the petitioners are not being issued with the degree certificate till date, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 by placing written instructions as furnished to him by the said respondents would submit that there are inter se disputes with regard to certain payments to be received from the respondent Nos.5 to 7 which have been accumulated to be in a sum of Rs.1,84,74,250/- and since the petitioners have obtained admissions in the aforesaid institution for completing the course, the certificates are not being furnished.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 on the other hand submits that the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 were permitted by respondent University to admit the students into two year MSIT programme and accordingly the petitioners have completed the course during the two year academic period of 2019-2021.
6. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that as per the MoU entered into between the 3rd respondent University and the respondent Nos.5 to 7, it is only the 3rd respondent which has undertaken to issue degree at the end of the programme inasmuch as the entire programme of learning and including curriculum is only determined by the 3rd respondent.
7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. It is an unfortunate situation whereby the respondent No. 3 which boasts itself to be one of the premier University owned by the Government and respondent Nos.5 to 7 which are also under the agis of the 1st respondent continue to fight among themselves for the amounts being claimed as due pursuant to an MoU entered into between them, at the cost of the students who in their pursuit to obtain higher professional qualification have got themselves admitted into 2 year MSIT programme offered by the 3rd respondent under the impression that the institution into which they are seeking admission is a consortium of National Level Universities comprising of 3rd respondent, IIIT & S.V. University. Further, the petitioners, claim to have paid the fee as prescribed and completed the course of two year programme offered by the 3rd respondent.
9. Though on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 it is contended that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are due a sum of Rs.1,84,74,250/-, it is to be noted that the said dues are not on account of any default committed by the petitioners in either paying the fee notified by the 3rd respondent or any other sum due to be paid by them for pursuing the course offered by the 3rd respondent.
10. On the other hand the 3rd respondent having issued no due certificate to the petitioners, could not have put the careers of the petitioners at stake for no fault of their’s, by not issuing the certificate for the course completed by them. The only fault if any committed by the petitioners is, trusting the claim of the respondents being the consortium of National Level Universities, their functioning would be fair and transparent, which trust reposed by the students l
