2026:UHC:1835 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 451 of 2026 17 March, 2026 Vikas Chand --Petitioner Versus Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Srinagar & others --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Manoj Sah and Ms. Seema Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Dr. K.H. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Shakti Saurabh Purohit, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to declare the BAMS third/final professional examination result of the petitioner and enter the name of the petitioner in the University Gazette-2011. 2. The petitioner was pursuing a BAMS course from respondent no.3-Uttarakhand Ayurved University, Rishikul Campus, Haridwar, affiliated to respondent nos.1 & 2-Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna University, Srinagar Garhwal (a Central University), in the batch of 2006. The 2026:UHC:1835 2 petitioner had to pass three professional examinations. 3. According to the petitioner, he could not pass the second professional examination. However, the third professional examination-2011 was passed by the petitioner. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner subsequently passed the second professional examination in the year 2012-13. The result of the petitioner has not been declared by the respondent-University, resulting in the filing of the present writ petition, though at a very belated stage in 2026. 5. This Court, vide order dated 09.03.2026, called for instructions from the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2-University. Learned counsel for the University, on instructions dated 24.02.2026, which were placed before this Court and made part of the record, submits that since the petitioner had failed in the second professional examination, and the said examination was passed by the petitioner in 2013 after passing the third professional examination, perhaps for that reason, the final result of the petitioner could not have been declared. 6. However, on instructions, it is submitted that the controversy in this writ petition revolves 2026:UHC:1835 3 around the fact that the second professional examination was passed by the petitioner subsequent to passing the third professional examination; therefore, an Examination Committee has been constituted to sort out this problem as to whether the petitioner will be considered pass or not. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2-University that the University does have an ‘Examination Committee’ which convenes its meeting once a year, and the matter of the petitioner has already been sent to the said Committee by the respondent-University. 8. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Examination Committee to take a decision on the matter of the petitioner expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, by a speaking order, but not later than three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.03.2026 AK 2026:UHC:1835 4