IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4181 of 2026 Decided on: 6th April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manish …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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 the B. Pharmacy course from respondent No.4–University under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registration as well as in the admission record. The University has also issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for 1st to 4th semester examinations, however, the petitioner has not appended his detailed marks cards with this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had made requests to the respondent- University on different occasions for issuance of the detailed marks cards and final degree. The same was not considered by the Committee duly constituted by the Government for verifying the record and supplying photocopies of 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. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5, on the basis of instructions imparted to her by the respondent- University, states that name of the petitioner is in green 3 sheet, but his admission was not found as per the allotted seats to respondent No.4-University of B. Pharmacy course and his name was not sent to respondent No.3 in disclosure list. As per the Gazette, the petitioner had re-appeared in 2nd semester and there are some other discrepancies in examination gazette. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is now covered by Priya Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others2, wherein, petitioner 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. 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 record in original is statedly 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. 2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025 4 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 06, 2026 Judge Mukesh