Can’t withhold result, documents for non-payment of fee: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, September 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that Panjab University or other educational institutes cannot withhold a student’s result, original detailed marks certificate, degree or other documents for the non-payment of fees. The only remedy is to institute appropriate proceedings for the recovery of money.

Students will suffer if papers not released

‘In case documents are not released, petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and would not be able to pursue further studies. In case some money is due from the petitioners, then also the respondents cannot withhold the result/original detailed marks certificate/degree/migration certificate and other documents of the petitioner.’

Justice Vikas Bahl, High Court

The assertion came as Justice Vikas Bahl directed Panjab University to declare the results of two candidates before issuing detailed marks cards and degrees within a month from today without insisting on the payment of the fee in question.

Taking up a couple of petitions, Justice Bahl asserted that the short question arising for consideration was whether the varsity could withhold the result or the original detailed marks sheets or degree and other documents on the grounds that the fees to be paid on their behalf by a college had not been furnished, particularly when the petitioners belonged to the SC category.

Referring to the post-matric scholarship scheme, Justice Bahl observed that they were not required to pay the fees. A respondent college in Punjab was to make the payment to the varsity before seeking reimbursement from the state government.

In a detailed order, Justice Bahl asserted that a perusal of an earlier judgment by a coordinate bench of the high court had made it clear that a student’s certificates were his or her individual property and no institution or individual could retain the same without lawful authority.

“In case something is due from a student, then recourse can be taken to means provided under the law for ensuring recovery, and adopting the method of retaining original certificates or documents is unfair,” Justice Bahl said.

He observed in the judgment that the only remedy for the authority was to enforce the surety bond and to recover the amount in accordance with the law rather than retaining a student’s documents. Justice Bahl added that the petitioners’ case was “on a higher footing”.

“It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to the SC community, are covered under the post-matriculation scholarship scheme, and are not required to pay the fee,” Justice Bahl noted while asserting that the payment was to be made by the college to the respondent varsity. The respondent college, in turn, was to seek reimbursement from the state government.