IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1134 of 2026 Decided on: 25.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pankaj Gautam …..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 B. Pharmacy Course from res.pondent No.4-University under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registra tion as also the admission record. The Universityo has also issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for all the semesters’ examinations. Petitioner has also appended his detailed marks cards as Annuexure P-1 (colly). It is further the case of the petitioner that though in the gazette, the marks secured by him in 1st semester have been reflected as 588/1000, but as per green sheet, the same have been shown as 598/900. This, accordingly to the petitioner, is a mismatch. As per ordinance, petitioner’s marks should have been mentioned as per gazette.

H 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 17.07.2025 (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 g azette of his 1st semester examinations and fuorther direction to the respondents to issue him corrected record.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the uissue 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 Happropriate 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

2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025

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 appearingP for respondent No.2, has also apprised the Court that as far as the role of respondent No.