2026:HHC:28217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11287 of 2026 Decided on: 10th July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishi Bhati …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.3. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Memo of parties reflects and is also admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is real brother of respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5 did not complete Degree in B.Sc. (Agriculture), still he got admission in M.Sc. (Agriculture) and got M.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree without completing the B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. That he got employment in the 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 2026:HHC:28217 respondent-H.P. University, Agro Economic Research Centre, Boileauganj in 2003 on the basis of his M.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. That in the process of getting employment, respondent No.5 concealed the relevant fact from the University about his having not completed the B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. Respondent No.5-real brother of the petitioner is stated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016. 2. Petitioner-real brother of respondent No.5 has maintained silence against the alleged illegalities/ irregularities in the educational qualifications of his real brother (respondent No.5) for more than 20 years from the date of respondent No.5’s appointment in the respondent- University, i.e. in the year 2003. About ten years after the retirement of respondent No.5, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking to hold inquiry into the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it was in the year 2024 that the petitioner came to know about respondent No.5’s not possessing the requisite qualifications or the fact that he did not complete B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree and yet obtained M.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. 3 2026:HHC:28217 In view of the huge lapse of time and considering the relation between the petitioner & respondent No.5, which makes it hard to digest the asserted fact of petitioner being not aware of the facts at the relevant time which he is now projecting to unearth, the relief, as prayed for, cannot be granted by issuing the writ of mandamus more than nine years after the retirement of respondent No.5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open for the respondents to decide petitioner’s complaint in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 10, 2026 Judge Mukesh