( 2025:HHC:32988 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.625 of 2025 a/w LPA Nos.643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 663, 66, 665, 666, 667, 668 & 672 of 2025 Decided on: 18 th September , 2025 __________________________________________________ LPA No.625 of 2025 Arnav Tandon ....appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.643 of 2025 State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants Versus Anika Butail and anr. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.644 of 2025 State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants Versus Tanvi Thakur and anr. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.645 of 2025 State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants Versus Akshit Thakur and anr. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.646 of 2025 State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants Versus Aarav Potan and anr. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.64 7 of 2025 State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants Versus Nikshay Sharma and anr. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.663 of 2025 Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant Versus Aarav Potan and ors. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.664 of 2025 Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant Versus Arushi Sharma and ors. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.665 of 2025 Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant Versus Nikshay Sharma and ors. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.666 of 2025 Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant Versus Akshit Thakur and ors. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.6 67 of 2025 Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant Versus Anika Butail and ors. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.668 of 2025 Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant Versus Tanvi Thakur and ors. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ LPA No.672 of 2025 State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants Versus Arushi Sharma and anr. ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant(s): Mr. Mohit Thakur, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocates & Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the appellants, in the respective cases. For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Mr. Mukul Sood, Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Mr. Mukul Sharma & Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocates, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey Advocate, and Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents, in the respective cases. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) In the present set of appeals which have now been filed both by the State and the University, apart from the aggrieved persons, who were not party in the writ petition, consideration is sought of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 29.07.2025 in CWP No.12045 of 2025 titled as Ms. Anika Butail vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith five other connected matters. 2. The writ petitioners in the writ petition were seeking the eligibility criteria for the Academic Session 2025, changed by Annexure P-3 to be quashed and the old eligibility criteria (Annexure 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? P-2) for Academic Session 2024 be allowed to continue and they be allowed to sit for counselling as per the same. In sum and substance, the grouse of the petitioners was that the child should have passed 10+1 or equivalent 10+2 from a recognized schools or colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to the relevant Boards. 3. A perusal of Annexure P-3 would go on to show that it is a Common/Centralized Counselling Prospectus for Under- Graduate Medical/Dental Courses for Admission to MBBS & BDS Courses based on Merit of NEET-UG-2025 for Session 2025-26. 4. Apparently, for the earlier year i.e. Academic Session 2024-25, the said condition was not there and the bona fide Himachali Certificate would suffice. 5. Similarly, in CWP No.11839 of 2025 titled Tanvi Thakur vs. State of H.P. and ors., the challenge was to Section 4 Clause 2(i) of the Prospectus for the year 2025-26. 6. The learned Single Judge had taken up the matter firstly on 25.07.2025, giving the petitioner liberty to upload her candidature on the website for the purpose of counselling which was to abide by the final decision of the writ petition and the matter was listed for 29.07.2025. On the said date, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the petitions were disposed of without calling for the reply. 7. Vide order dated 11.08.2025 while staying the operation of the said judgment, we noticed the following contentions:- “It is brought to our notice that leave to appeal has been filed on account of applicant being an aggrieved party and directly affected by the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 29.07.2025. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in CWP No.1353 of 2018, titled Shivam Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 31.07.2018. 2. It is pointed out that the said case had gone to third judge on account of divergence in the opinion, as such, and the matter was thereafter taken to the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 23025- 23026/2018, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Shivam Sharma. Though interference was not made, as such, specifically, but vide order dated 29.08.2018 it was held that the judgment passed by the High Court was not to be treated as a precedent. 3. It is further submitted that reliance had been placed by the Apex Court at that point of time on the judgment in writ Petition [C] No.766 of 2018, titled Rajdeep Ghosh versus State of Assam & others, decided on 17.08.2018, wherein it was held that if parents have moved residence outside in private employment and the wards have been obtaining education outside, they are not likely to come back, thus, their exclusion as such, cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. 4. The same issue had again come up in CWP No.5308 of 2020, titled Harshit Bansal versus State of H.P. and others alongwith connected matter, decided on 23.11.2020, before the Co-ordinate Bench wherein the said fact was taken into consideration and it was held that exclusion, as such, was not liable to be held bad and it was also held that such parents had been rightly excluded by the State from the exemption and the classification was well founded, which cannot be said to be arbitrary. 5. The said decision was then challenged in SLP[C] No. 14693/2020, titled Meghna Guleria versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 17.12.2020 but to no avail. It is thus submitted that counsel for the State did not apprise the Court regarding subsequent developments and the judgments delivered. From the judgment under consideration it would be clear that it was passed at the initial stage, without even calling for a reply and with the consent of the State. 6. Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. 7. Issue notice to respondent No.4, returnable for 25.08.2025, on taking steps within two days. CMP No.__________of 2025 in CMPST No. 40964 of 2025 Notice in the aforesaid terms to respondent No.4. 8. Operation of judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.12045 of 2025, titled as Ms. Anika Butail Versus State of HP & Ors. alongwith connected matters, decided on 29.07.2025, shall remain stayed. 9. Counsel for the applicant shall take steps to implead the other writ petitioner’s also by filing an appropriate application.” 8. Thereafter various applications came to be filed for intervention by the writ petitioners and for impleadment of them by the appellant and consequential orders have been passed. 9. Counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents herein have now sought to argue on merits of the case to justify and sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. It is also been brought to our notice that apart from the observations made by us in the earlier order dated 11.09.2025, subsequently the Apex Court had also passed an order on 01.09.2025 in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21536-21588 of 2024, the State of Telangana & others vs. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & others, wherein also the view taken is that students who study in other States are not liable to be adjusted in the State quota. 10. Reliance has also been made to the judgment in Rajdeep Ghosh (supra), which we had also referred to. Thus, it is apparent that pleadings were never complete as such before the learned Single Judge. The factual matrix has also been thrashed out by us in the order dated 11.08.2025, giving the reasoning that the judgment in Rajdeep Ghosh and Harshit Bansal (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 11. In such circumstances, the counsels are also agreed that the matter would necessarily have to be sent back for decision afresh on merits. 12. Resultantly, since not only the State is aggrieved apart from the University and the affected parties, we allow the present appeals and remand the matter to learned Single Judge. It is open to the appellant in LPA No.625 of 2025 titled Arnav Tandon vs. State of H.P. and ors. and other aggrieved persons to file appropriate applications to be impleaded in view of the fact that the interest of several persons was involved which was another aspect on which interference was to be done since it is a settled principle that the terms of the prospectus are binding as such on all concerned until quashed. 13. Needless to say that since the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge, the University and the State should complete the pleadings at the earliest since the academic interest of the candidates is involved. 14. The matter to come up before the learned Single Judge on 23.09.2025 as per Roster. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 18 th September , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge