1 2025:HHC:7616 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 342 of 2024 Decided on: 25.03.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Lakesh Dutt ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. _______________________________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents No.1 to 4 and 6/State. Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Tarlok Singh Chauhan , Judge (oral) Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant with regard to awarding more marks, as he had additional qualification of Parbhakar and at the same time had not dealt with the contention of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:7616 appellant that if the appellant could not be awarded more marks on account of possessing a Degree of Parbhakar so how could respondent No.7 be awarded additional marks for D.P. Ed. 2. However, we find that such contention has not been raised before the learned Single Judge or at least the same is not apparent from the order impugned herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would state that even though he argued the contention regarding awarding of additional marks to respondent No.7, as being arbitrary, but the same has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. 4. The aforesaid contention of the appellant cannot be raised in an appeal, as it is more than settled that anything happening in the Court have to be brought in that Court itself and cannot be raised in an appeal. 5. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the instant appeal at this stage, with liberty to approach the learned Writ Court by filing a review petition. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. 3 2025:HHC:7616 6. Consequently the instant appeal is disposed of, as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the appellant to approach the learned Writ Court. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) 25th March, 2025 Judge (Sumit)