IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1239 of 2026 Decided on: 27.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mehmood Amin …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents -----------------------------------------------o--------------------------------------

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal tDua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anirudh R.H. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 5.

Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Ms. Kanta Devi, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge H Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. L.S. Mehta and Ms. Kanta Devi, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

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 called from the respondents. The matter has acc.ordingly been heard.

3. The case set up by the petit ioner is that he successfully pursued the B. oPharmacy course from respondent No. 4–University under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registration as well as in the admuission record. The University has also issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for all the semester examinations. The petitioner has also appended his detailed marks cards as Annexure P-1 (colly). It is further the case of the petitioner that though, in the green sheet, the marks secured by him in the 2nd semester have been reflected as 6.83, yet as per the Gazette, the petitioner has Hbeen shown to re-appear in the 2nd semester. This, according to the petitioner, is a mismatch. The marksheet (OMC) of the 2nd semester shows the petitioner as pass.

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 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 suppli.ed the information vide office order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P- 4) by the respondent-University thereby s tating that DMC has been issued from 1st to 8th semoester, except 2nd semester, where it shows re-appear as noticed above. Petitioner seeks rectification and for direction to the respondents for carrying out the correction iun the mismatch to correct the result as per DMC issued (Annexure P-1) and further direction to the respondents to issue him corrected record.

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 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 Hsquarely 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

2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025

such application, learned Trial Court was to pass 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 Horiginal 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, thfe petitioner is granted permission to move an apoplication to this effect before the learned Trial Court, w