Holding that educational institutions cannot retain academic certificates to force payment of disputed dues, the Calcutta High Court has ordered a private dental college to refund Rs 9.5 lakh and return the original certificates of a dentist who quit her MDS course within six days after the institute allegedly demanded Rs 18 lakh more before releasing them.Justice Krishna Rao was hearing a writ petition filed by one Dr Sreeparna Ghosh against the state of West Bengal and others concerning her admission to the MDS programme in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research (HIDSAR) and her subsequent decision to withdraw from the course.“The College has not considered the policy decision taken by the UGC while issuance of the circular. By ignoring the UGC policy, the College has obtained Discontinuity Bond from the petitioner… There is no condition in the Discontinuity Bond that the College will retain the original testimonials of the petitioner till the payment is made,” the court said on June 23.The dispute arose from Dr Ghosh’s admission to a management quota seat in August 2024, and raised larger questions about fee refunds, discontinuation bonds and the practice of colleges retaining original certificates of students who leave courses midway.According to the judgment, Dr Ghosh completed her Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) degree from Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences and appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Master of Dental Surgery (NEET-MDS) to pursue postgraduate studies. She secured a rank of 8,478 and was allotted a seat in HIDSAR during the third round of counselling. Justice Krishna Rao observed that the college had ignored the UGC policy while insisting on enforcing the discontinuation bond.The college informed her that the three-year MDS programme would cost Rs 27 lakh. She paid Rs 9 lakh as tuition fees, Rs 15,000 as admission fees and Rs 25,000 towards student activities, taking the total amount paid to Rs 9.5 lakh. She also deposited several original documents, including her BDS degree certificate, marksheets, domicile certificate, registration certificate and internship completion certificate.Why she decided to leaveThe court recorded that after attending the college for six days, the student felt the institution lacked adequate educational facilities and academic guidance. She concluded that continuing there would not help her achieve the level of academic excellence she was seeking and therefore decided to withdraw.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Teej gift box for son-in-law arrives damaged, empty, DTDC to now pay Rs 23,440On September 10, 2024, she emailed the college informing it of her decision to discontinue the course and requested the return of her fees and original testimonials.However, according to the petition, the college refused to release the documents and allegedly insisted that she first pay the remaining Rs 18 lakh of the total course fee.Her counsel argued that without the original certificates, she could neither practise as a dentist nor pursue further academic opportunities.College relied on bond, counselling rulesThe college opposed the petition and pointed out that Dr Ghosh had signed a discontinuation bond at the time of admission on August 29, 2024. Under it, she had agreed to pay the remaining tuition fees for the entire course if she resigned or discontinued the programme before completion.Story continues below this adThe institution also relied on a July 22, 2024, circular issued by the West Bengal Medical Counselling Committee, which restricted the surrender of seats after the third round of counselling. According to the college, the student was therefore liable to pay the remaining fees.Also Read | ITBP man removed over ‘affair’ with senior’s wife gets Himachal High Court reliefIt further argued that refund guidelines of the University Grants Commission (UGC) were not applicable to dental colleges, which are governed by specialised regulatory bodies.Court’s findingsJustice Rao rejected the college’s argument and examined the UGC Fee Refund Policy issued on June 12, 2024.The policy provides that higher educational institutions must grant a full refund of fees for admissions cancelled up to September 30, 2024. The high court noted that Dr Ghosh had sought withdrawal on September 10, 2024, well within that period.The judge also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Praneeth K vs University Grants Commission, which held that UGC guidelines issued under statutory powers cannot be treated as merely advisory.The court observed that the college had ignored the UGC policy while insisting on enforcing the discontinuation bond. It further noted that the bond itself contained no clause authorising the college to retain the student’s original certificates.Holding that the student was entitled to a complete refund under the UGC’s fee refund policy, the court observed that she was eligible to receive the full Rs 9.5 lakh deposited with the college after seeking withdrawal before the prescribed deadline.‘Certificates can’t be held back’Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the Madras and Kerala high courts, Justice Rao said that educational institutions cannot retain academic certificates to compel payment of disputed amounts.The judgment stressed that original educational documents are essential for employment, professional practice and higher studies, and withholding them could cause serious hardship to students.Story continues below this adAlso Read | How a childhood offence left this Gorakhpur man in passport limbo for 15 yearsThe high court also noted that if any amount is genuinely recoverable under a bond, the institution must pursue appropriate legal remedies instead of retaining certificates as a pressure tactic.The court held that educational institutions cannot withhold students’ academic documents to enforce disputed fee claims.Final directionsAllowing the petition, the Calcutta High Court directed the institute to refund the entire Rs 9.5 lakh paid by Dr Ghosh and return all her original testimonials within two weeks of receiving the order.The ruling is expected to offer relief to students facing similar disputes over fee refunds and retention of educational certificates after withdrawing from professional courses.