Om Singh Vs State of Hp

Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

¶13

Advocate General, Mr. L.S. Mehta and Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

¶14

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

¶15

2

¶16

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 accordingly been heard.

¶17

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he successfully completed the Diploma in Pharmacy from respondent No.3–University under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registration as well as in the admission record. The University has not issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for any of the semester examinations till date. It is further the case of the petitioner that though he has successfully completed Pharmacy Diploma course and cleared all the exams, but the respondent-University has not issued him provisional and final degree alongwith other relevant documents till date.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had 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

¶19

3

¶20

Superintendent of Police, District Solan. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 stated that there seems to be mismatch of marks in the Gazette and DMC of 3^rd semester as the gazette/result of 1^st year shows 633/1100 marks, but as per entry made of DMC on green sheet, it shows 749/1100, which is a clear mismatch and that the correction, if any, is to be done as per the Gazette only.

¶22

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 where the mark sheet in original stood deposited and on receipt of such application, learned Trial Court was to pass appropriate orders.

¶23

5. In view of above, without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to move appropriate application

¶24

2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025

¶25

4

¶26

before the learned Trial Court where marks sheets in original 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 parties are left open.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 08, 2026 Judge rohit

Om Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dina Nath Gautam Vs the Hrtc and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs Abhishek Jain and Anr.

Vijay Pal and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Bimla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Kumar Chadha Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others