IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1133 of 2026 Decided on: 25.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alok Patel …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .... .Respondents ------------------------------------------------------f-------------------------------

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

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

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

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

gJyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 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.

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.

called from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard.

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he successfully pursued BCA Course from responde.nt No.4-

University under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registration as al so the admission record. The University has also issoued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for all the semesters’ examinations. Petitioner has also appended his detailed marks cards as Annexure P-1 (collyu). It is further the case of the petitioner that though in the gazette, the marks secured by him in 2nd semester have been reflected as 7.43, but as per green sheet, the same has been shown as 6.95. This, accordingly to the petitioner, is a mismatch. Petitioner has been shown as qualified candidate in the 6th semester’s detailed marks card, whereas in accordance with applicable Hordinance, 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 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 order dated 17.09.2025 (Ann.exure P-

2) by the respondent-University of there being a mismatch as noticed above. Petitioner seeks rect ification and for direction to the respondents for coarrying out the correction in the mismatch of green sheet and gazette of his 2nd and 6th semesters examinations and further direction to the respondents to issuue him corrected record.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have 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 Hwhere the mark sheet in original stood deposited and on receipt of 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 original record, which is presently lying with the learned Trial Court,

2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025

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 ofP the contents of the application, may pass appropriate order thereupon. .

6. Ms. Tanu Sharma, lea