Manish Vs the State of Hp and Others

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he successfully completed the B. Pharmacy course from respondent No.4–University under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registration as well as in the admission record. The University has also issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for 1^st to 4^th semester examinations, however, the petitioner has not appended his detailed marks cards with this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had made requests to the respondentUniversity on different occasions for issuance of the detailed marks cards and final degree. 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. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5, on the basis of instructions imparted to her by the respondentUniversity, states that name of the petitioner is in green

¶25

3

¶26

sheet, but his admission was not found as per the allotted seats to respondent No.4-University of B. Pharmacy course and his name was not sent to respondent No.3 in disclosure list. As per the Gazette, the petitioner had re-appeared in 2^nd semester and there are some other discrepancies in examination gazette.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is now covered

¶28

by Priya Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others² , wherein, petitioner 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.

¶29

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 before the learned Trial Court where record in original is statedly 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.

¶30

2 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025

¶31

4

¶32

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶33

also stand disposed of.

¶34

Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 06, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Manish v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Anant Ram Negi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Satya Dev Rattan and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dabe Ram and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Mohammed Iqbal Vs the Hrtc and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Ajeta Sharma and Others Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Another