IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4156 of 2026 Decided on: 31.03.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Divya Gulpa …..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. Balwant Thakur, 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 petiti oner is that she successfully pursued the BALLB ocourse from respondents No. 3 & 4–University under a specific registration number. Her name appeared in the student registration as well as in the admission recordu. The University has also issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for 1st & 2nd semester examinations. The petitioner has also appended her detailed marks cards as Annexure P-3 (colly). It is further the case of the petitioner that though she has successfully completed BALLB course and cleared all the exams, but respondents- University has not issued her provisional and final degree till Hdate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner made a request to the respondent-University for rectifying the errors. The same was not 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 DMC’s of

1st & 2nd semesters only. .

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 stated that there seems to be mismatch of mark s in gazette and DMC’s of 1st & 2^nd semesters as the gazette/result of 1st semester shows 6.10/10 and 2nd semester as 6.00/10, but as per entry made of DMC’s on green sheet it shows 6.17/10 and 6.03/10 respecutively and that the corrections, if any, is to be done as per the Gazette only.

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 Happropriate 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 appropriate orders. Relevant portion from the said decision reads as under:-

2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025

“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 Pbe in the interest of justice, in case, the petitioner is granted permission to move an application to this effec.t 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 verty limited. Once the Degree of the petitio