IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2578 of 2026 Decided on: 05.03.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kushagra Gautam …..Petitioner Versus Manav Bharti University and Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Kanta Devi, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 & 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Kanta Devi, learned counsel and Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 & 3, respectively. 2. In view of the grievances, documents appended alongwith the writ petition and nature of order being passed 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he successfully pursued the B.Tech Course from respondent No. 1–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 all the semesters’ examinations. The petitioner has also appended his detailed marks cards as Annexure P-4 (colly). It is further the case of the petitioner that though, in the gazette, the marks secured by him in the 8th semester have been reflected as 786/1250, yet as per the green sheet, the same has been shown as 845/1250. This, according to the petitioner, is a mismatch. Petitioner has been shown as qualified candidate in the 8th semester’s detailed marks card, whereas in accordance with applicable ordinance, petitioner’s marks should have been mentioned as per gazette. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner made a request to the respondent-University for rectifying the errors. The same was considered by the Committee duly constituted by the Government for verifying 3 the record and supplying photocopies of relevant documents under the custody of SIT under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, District Solan. Petitioner was eventually supplied the information vide office verification order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) by the respondent-University of there being a mismatch as noticed above. Petitioner seeks rectification and for direction to the respondents for carrying out the correction in the mismatch of green sheet and gazette of his 8th semester examination and further direction to the respondents to issue him corrected record. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that corrections, if any, is to be done as per the Gazette only. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has jointly submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is now 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 2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025 4 appropriate orders. Relevant portion from the said decision reads as under:- “5. In the light of the fact that the relevant correction, if ordered, has to be carried out in the original record, which is presently lying with the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, the petitioner is granted permission to move an application to this effect before the learned Trial Court, which in the light of the contents of the application, may pass appropriate order thereupon. 6. Ms. Tanu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, has also apprised the Court that as far as the role of respondent No.2 in this writ petition is concerned, it is very limited. Once the Degree of the petitioner is verified by the University concerned, it is only thereafter that the petitioner can approach respondent No.2 for her registration and the registration will be if the petitioner satisfies the statutory provisions of the Act concerned. 7. In the light of the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court where the mark-sheets in original stand deposited and on the receipt of any such application, let the learned Trial Court pass appropriate order thereupon. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” 5. In view of above, without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is also disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court where marks sheets in original 5 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 partes are left open. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 05, 2026 Judge Rohit