IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14431 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 25.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4469 of 2022, titled Mr. Ishwar Dyal vs. Dr. Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Nauni alongwith connected matters and order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Registrar, Dr. Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Himachal Pradesh and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) having been filed by the petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment and order, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to 2 aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to disposal of his representation. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Ishwar Dyal (supra) as well as order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Registrar of the University concerned. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. September 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge