( 2025:HHC:28021 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1456 of 2025 and LPA No.549 of 2025. Decided on: 18.08.2025 Rupansh Rana ....Appellant/Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.1456 of 2025. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant, delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.549 of 2025. 3. The challenge as such in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 03.04.2025, passed by the learned Single of this Court in CWP No.3275 of 2025 titled Rupansh 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Rana Vs. Himachal Pradesh University, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed wherein the prayer as such was made seeking hostel facility under the category of Econmically Weaker Sections (EWS). 4. The learned Single Judge, keeping in view the fact that the stand of the respondent-University was that the admission was made against the seats belonging to the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) category and due to the non-availability of the candidates and the appellant/petitioner had never been made the cut under general category candidate on merit as such. Only after the conversion of the seats he had got admission and conclusion drawn was that the entitlement as such for hostel on account of the Econmically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidate could not be justiifed. The following observations which are objected were made by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition in paragraph 6 which read as under:- “6. In fact, the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by mentioning in Para-5 of the writ petition that he was admitted in the M.Ed Course under General EWS Category, though against a post of PWD Quota. This Court deprecates this sharp practice of making incorrect averments in the writ petition. However, this Court is not taking any further action in the matter in the light of the fact that the petitioner is student.” 5. It is the case of the counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the reply as such was filed before the 3 learned Single only on 29.03.2025 and the record had been called for 01.04.2025 and the matter was decided on 03.04.2025 and he did not get chance as such to controvert the written statement filed by the University and therefore, the observations made by the learned Single Judge as such would be liable to be struck off from the judgment as such, as the said observations would always be held against the appellant/petitioner. 6. It is submitted that as per the reply filed also, it had been clarified that the admission had been granted against the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) vacant seats and it had been admitted that the appellant/petitioner had applied for M.Ed under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category as per the advertisment. However, the appellant/petitioner had got admission on the general category against two vacant seats of PWD Quota in order of merit as per the marks obtained in the M.Ed. Entrance Test, 2024. 7. It is thus submitted that the effective opportunity was not given to controvert the fact that there was also 10 per cent additional seats reserved for the Econmically Weaker Sections (EWS) category and the appellant/petitioner having applied as such against the same. The claim had been filed on the said account as an Econmically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidate. It 4 had also been averred that the appellant/petitioner was not considered for hostel allotment under general category and the fact that for the allotment of university hostels, the policy of the University as such had not been implemented qua Econmically Weaker Sections (EWS). 8. It has been thus argued that the defence as such that on account of FIR, as per Clause 33.9 of the Handbook of Information for the academic session 2024-2025 “no student shall be allotted hostel against whom the university has lodged FIR”, which was a defence of the University could also not be challenged. 9. We have also perused the list of the three FIR’s as such in which the appellant/petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and as conceded by the counsel for the appellant that one of the cases as such have been lodged by the University. 10. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified as such in taking an overall view as such and rejecting the petition for allotment of hostel. However, the fact that the University had itself admitted that the initial admission had been sought under the Econmically Weaker Sections (EWS) category, but the University thereafter had granted it against the other two general 5 seats on account of the non-filling of the seats of Physical Disabled Category. 11. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal, by directing that the observations made in paragraph 6 of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge would stand deleted. Office shall take necessary steps. 12. Resultantly, the present appeal stands disposed off. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 18th August, 2025 (munish thakur)