Calcutta HC Orders Haldia Dental College to Refund Rs 9.5 Lakh and Return Original Certificates to MDS Student Who Withdrew After Six Days
Justice Krishna Rao held that the UGC Fee Refund Policy 2024-25 entitled the petitioner to a full refund, and that withholding original degree certificates to enforce a disputed bond debt is void as against public policy.
The High Court at Calcutta has directed the Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research (HIDSAR) to refund Rs 9,50,000/- and return all original academic certificates to a postgraduate dental student within two weeks of receiving the order. Justice Krishna Rao, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, allowed W.P.A. No. 28769 of 2024 filed by Dr. Sreeparna Ghosh, who had withdrawn from her MDS course after attending college for only six days. The college had refused to refund the fees or release her documents unless she paid the remaining Rs 18,00,000/- of the three-year course fee. The court found that the UGC Fee Refund Policy dated 12 June 2024 applied to the institution, that the petitioner's withdrawal on 10 September 2024 fell within the full-refund window, and that retaining original certificates to enforce a bond obligation is void as opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The Dispute Before the Court
Dr. Sreeparna Ghosh completed her BDS course from Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences and then appeared for the NEET MDS examination, securing rank 8478. In the third round of West Bengal NEET MDS 2024 counselling, she was allotted a seat in HIDSAR, Haldia, for the MDS course in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery under the Management Quota. Her admission date was 29 August 2024.
The total course fee for three years was stated to be Rs 27,00,000/-. On the date of admission, the petitioner paid Rs 9,25,000/- as tuition fees and Rs 25,000/- for student activities, totalling Rs 9,50,000/-. She also submitted eight original documents as part of the admission formalities, including her BDS Degree Certificate, professional marksheets, NEET MDS admit card and rank card, Class X admit card, domicile certificate, Permanent Registration Certificate from the West Bengal Dental Council, and her Internship Completion Certificate.
On the same day, 29 August 2024, the petitioner signed a Discontinuity Bond on a Rs 50/- stamp paper. The bond recorded that she had taken admission under the Management Quota and undertook to pay the remaining tuition fees for the entire three-year MDS course if she resigned or discontinued before completion.
After attending college for six days, the petitioner found that the institution lacked proper educational facilities and guidance. She concluded that she would not be able to meet her academic goals there. On 10 September 2024, she sent an email to the college requesting withdrawal, a refund of Rs 9,50,000/-, and the return of all original documents. The college's response was to demand payment of the balance Rs 18,00,000/- before releasing any documents or issuing a relieving letter.
Without her original BDS degree certificate and other credentials, the petitioner was unable to practise as a dentist or pursue any further academic course. She filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the college to return the fees and documents.
Two Issues Framed by the Court
Justice Krishna Rao identified two distinct questions for determination. First, whether the UGC Fee Refund Policy dated 12 June 2024 applied to HIDSAR. Second, whether the college could retain the petitioner's original certificates on the ground that she had not paid the balance course fee under the Discontinuity Bond.
The college's senior counsel, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, argued that UGC guidelines do not govern medical or dental colleges, which are regulated by the Dental Council of India and the West Bengal Medical Counselling Committee (WBMCC). He relied on the WBMCC circular dated 22 July 2024, which provided that seat surrender was not permitted from Round 3 onwards until the counselling process was complete, and that bond penalty applied thereafter. He also relied on the Discontinuity Bond signed by the petitioner and on Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697, to argue that collecting advance fees and requiring bonds was a recognised practice to protect institutions from mid-stream departures.
The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Arkadyuti Pahari, countered that HIDSAR is affiliated with the West Bengal University of Health Sciences, which is recognised by the UGC, making the UGC's fee refund policy applicable. He relied on Praneeth K. and Others v. University Grants Commission (UGC) and Others, (2021) 14 SCC 241, for the proposition that UGC guidelines issued under Section 12 of the UGC Act carry statutory force. He also cited the Madras High Court's unreported judgment in M. Sumer v. The Chairman, PMR Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu, Chennai and Others in W.P.A. No. 19908 of 2009, and the Kerala High Court's decision in Shireen M.T. and Others v. The State of Kerala and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 2660, on the illegality of withholding certificates.
How the Court Reasoned on the UGC Policy
On the first issue, the court examined the UGC Fee Refund Policy 2024-25 issued on 12 June 2024. Clause 3(a) of that policy provides that a full refund of fees shall be made by Higher Education Institutions for all cancellations of admissions or migrations up to 30 September 2024, with a deduction of not more than Rs 1,000/- as processing fees up to 31 October 2024. The policy applies to all higher education institutions established under a Central or State Act, every institution recognised by the UGC under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, institutions deemed to be universities under Section 3 of that Act, and all institutions affiliated to a university.
The court noted that HIDSAR is on the UGC's approved list, even though its primary regulatory body is the Dental Council of India. The college's circular of 22 July 2024 was issued after the UGC policy of 12 June 2024, yet the college had not taken the UGC policy into account when issuing that circular or when obtaining the Discontinuity Bond from the petitioner.
Applying Praneeth K., the court held that UGC guidelines issued under Section 12 of the UGC Act are not merely advisory. The Supreme Court in that case had held that Regulation 6.1 of the UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the Master's Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 imposes a statutory duty on universities to adopt UGC guidelines, and that such guidelines “cannot be ignored by terming it as non-statutory or advisory.” The petitioner had informed the college of her withdrawal on 10 September 2024, which was before the 30 September 2024 deadline in Clause 3(a). The court held that she was entitled to a full refund of Rs 9,50,000/-.
Withholding Original Certificates: Bond Obligation Versus Public Policy
On the second issue, the court examined whether the Discontinuity Bond gave the college any right to retain the petitioner's original certificates. The court made a pointed observation: the Discontinuity Bond itself contained no condition permitting the college to retain original testimonials until payment was made. The bond only recorded an undertaking to pay the remaining fees; it said nothing about withholding documents as a mechanism of enforcement.
The court then turned to the line of authority on this question. In Islamic Academy of Education, the Supreme Court had held that an educational institution may charge only one semester or year's fees at a time, and that if it collects fees in advance, the balance must be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank. The court may, at most, require a bond or bank guarantee for the balance. The Supreme Court in that case made no reference to withholding transfer certificates or other original documents.
The Madras High Court in M. Sumer had expressly addressed this gap, holding that Islamic Academy of Education “nowhere” authorised withholding of transfer and other certificates, and that a college “cannot trace any sustenance from the said judgment to withhold the Transfer Certificate only on the ground that the full fees for 3rd and 4th year were not paid.”
The Kerala High Court in Shireen M.T. went further, holding that even if a bond or agreement authorising the college to withhold certificates is not void for want of consideration, it is void as opposed to public policy within the meaning of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court in that case reasoned that certificates of educational qualification are the primary documents required for employment and higher studies, and that withholding them to enforce a disputed liability compels a student to forgo any legal defences available to her. Such a practice, the Kerala High Court held, is against public good and public interest and cannot be accepted as approved social conduct.
Justice Krishna Rao adopted this reasoning. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 renders the object or consideration of a contract unlawful if it is against public policy, involves injury to a person, or is immoral. The court found that the college's conduct in retaining original certificates to coerce payment of a disputed bond amount fell squarely within this prohibition.
Order
Justice Krishna Rao allowed W.P.A. No. 28769 of 2024. Respondent no. 5, the Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, was directed to refund Rs 9,50,000/- along with all original testimonials of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The judgment was pronounced on 23 June 2026, after the hearing concluded on 11 June 2026.