2025:HHC:323 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3982 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.01.2025 _______________________________________________________ Akash Srivastava …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “1. That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the respondents/ committee may kindly be directed to verify the academic records of the petitioner in a time bound manner; 2. That the respondents/committee may kindly be directed to reconsider the criteria set up for considering the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:323 genuine students in a time bound manner as the petitioner has already completed his graduation Degree in Arts in the year 2013; 3. That the condition No.4, D, A and F of the parameters set by the respondent State for supplying the documents may kindly be set aside and directions may kindly be passed to reconsider and reframe the parameters again keeping in view the interest of the students; 4. The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as genuine student of the Bachelor of Arts, as the petitioner has been enrolled as student through proper admission process; 2. Before any reply could be elicited from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 20.12.2024, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPIL No.22 of 2022, titled as Court on its own motion vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters. Learned counsel representing the respondents are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief clause vis-à-vis judgment dated 22nd December 2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPIL No.22 of 2022, this Court finds that case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case decided by Division Bench of this Court. Vide aforesaid judgment, 3 2025:HHC:323 Division Bench of this Court has already dealt with all the points raised in the instant petition and as such, respondents can be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court. 4. Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 02, 2025 (shankar)