2026:HHC:889 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20686 of 2025 Date of decision: 05.01.2026 Ayushi Gupta. ...Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petition has been filed seeking following substantive reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing the order dated 07.11.2025 whereby Dr. Mamta Awasthi has been appointed as Co-supervisor despite being from an unrelated field and petitioner may be permitted to select Co-supervisor from the appropriate specialisation (Geotechnical/Geo-Environmental Engineering) either from the same institute or from an outside institute as mandated under Para 8.1.7 of the Ordinance. 2. To direct Respondent No.3 to instruct the supervisor to allot the research objectives to the petitioner, as the comprehensive work is required to be completed within two years, which period will expire in the month of December. Failing such allotment, the petitioner will face termination from the Ph.D. programme.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. At this stage, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India points out that representation submitted by the petitioner to Director, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, dated 26.11.2025, is pending consideration, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-10. It is submitted that the respondents are ready to decide the said representation in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule, as may be granted by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case representation of the petitioner is considered in a time-bound manner, taking into consideration all relevant norms, provisions of Statute and Rules, including the mandate under para 8.1.7 of Regulation, as applicable to the appointment of Co-Supervisor, petitioner would be satisfied, however, reserving liberty to file fresh petition in case the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed. 4. In view of above submissions made by learned counsel for parties, and for the nature of order proposed to be passed, there is no necessity for calling reply of respondents. 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, the respondents, especially Director, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, are directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, -3- as has been desired on her behalf, on or before 15.01.2026, by taking into consideration the relevant norms, provisions of Statutes, Rules and Regulations as applicable. Copy of the decision shall be supplied to the petitioner immediately after passing of the order. 6. Needless to say, in case grievance of the petitioner still remains to be redressed, the petitioner shall have liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 7. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge 5th January, 2026 (Pardeep)