IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12951 of 2026 Decided on: 30th July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajat Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. L.S. Mehta and Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. In view of the grievances, documents appended alongwith the writ petition and nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 called from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he successfully completed B.Tech (Electrical) Degree Course from respondent No.4–University in the year 2020 under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registration as well as in the admission record. The University has not issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for all the semester till date. It is further the case of the petitioner that though he has successfully completed B.Tech Degree course and cleared all the exams, but the respondent-University has not issued him provisional and final degree alongwith other relevant documents till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had made a request to the respondent-University for rectifying the errors. The same was not considered by the Committee duly constituted by the Government for verifying the record and not supplying relevant documents under the custody of SIT under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, District Solan. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is now 3 squarely covered by Priya Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others2, whereunder, in similar circumstances, petitioner therein was permitted to move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court where the mark sheet in original stood deposited and on receipt of such application, learned Trial Court was to pass appropriate orders. However, as per respondent No.4 on the basis of instructions imparted to it, the petitioner has not cleared his 1st & 7th semester. 5. In view of above, without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court where marks sheets in original are lying deposited. In case of moving of such application, the concerned learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders thereupon. All rights & contentions of the parties are left open. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 30, 2026 Judge rohit 2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025