D.Rabel Jesudass v. The University Grants Commission (Ugc)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR D.Rabel Jesudass

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The University Grants Commissioner (UGC), Head Office, Bahadur Shaz Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.

2. The Vice-Chancellor/Administrator, Mewar University, NH-48, Gangrar Chittorgrah, Rajasthan - 312 901.

3. The Principal, Mewar University, NH-48, Gangrar Chittorgrah, Rajasthan - 312 901.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to return the petitioner's original copies of the Migration Certificate (Transfer Certificate) and Convocation Certificate to the petitioner forthwith based on the petitioner's representation dated 15.03.2025 and 06.05.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj For Respondents : Mr.P.Karthick for R1 Mr.J.Mohamed Ibrahim for R2 & R3 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the third respondent to return the original Migration Certificate and Convocation Certificate based on his representations dated 15.03.2025 and 06.05.2025.

2. The petitioner states that he was enrolled as a student in the third respondent College for the Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) course during the academic years 2015 to 2018 and had successfully completed the course. However, the aforesaid certificates have not been issued to him.

3. The respondents 2 and 3, on verification of the official records of Mewar University, submit that there is no record of the petitioner having been enrolled in any course during the period 2015 to 2018. It is further stated that no fee payments have been made by the petitioner to the University and no academic records exist in the University's official database. According to the respondents, the petitioner has fabricated the claim of enrollment, course completion, and fee payment.

4. In light of the categorical stand taken by the respondents that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are fabricated, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate such disputed questions of fact. The 2/4

issue as to whether the documents are genuine or fabricated requires appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible in writ proceedings.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, preserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the relief sought. It is also made clear that, if the averments made by the respondents are found to be false, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action against the respondents in accordance with law.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

27.04.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi 3/4

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

mbi 27.04.2026 4/4