Sushil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 3. Ms Kanta Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

The case set up by the petitioner is that he took admission in LLB five years Degree course in the year 2015 in respondent No.2-University. He appeared in all ten semesters examinations for the course in question. Detailed Marks Cards for 1^st to 7^th semesters were issued to him. He cleared LLB Degree course in the year 2020. Petitioner required his final Degree of LLB examination. He requested respondent No.2 for releasing the same. Despite repeated representations of the petitioner, written and oral, final degree of LLB course was not issued to him. Based upon the verification report dated 07.06.2023, the petitioner was apprised by the respondents that:

¶13

(i) Though his name appears in the green sheet register, session

¶14

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

¶15

2

¶16

(2015-16), but not in admission disclosure list: Instead of petitioner’s name, name of one Gulzar Singh has been reflected under petitioner’s roll number; and (ii) Though the petitioner has been issued Detailed Marks Cards for 1^st to 7^th semesters.

¶17

In the above background, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to issue LLB degree.

¶18

2. It is not in dispute that this case is covered by the decision rendered in Pratima Das Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.² . In Pratima Das² , the petitioner therein was found to be enrolled in the green register, but her name was not reflected in the admission disclosure list. Instead, name of another person had been mentioned against the admission number assigned to Pratima Das. Respondent No.3- University acknowledged the mistake at its end while preparing the admission disclosure list, wherein, name of Pratima Das had not been mentioned. The Special Leave Petition was, therefore, decided as under:-

¶19

“20. From the above affidavit and documents on record, it is undisputed that the Appellant has been a bona fide student of MB University and had cleared all her examinations. It is also evident that the exclusion of the name of the Appellant in the admission disclosure list has occurred due to no fault on part of the Appellant, rather the same is at the hands of the University for which the Appellant cannot be made to suffer. 21. Having regard to the above established facts based on records, we are of the view that the Appellant has been deprived of her documents for no fault of hers for a

¶20

2 SLP(Civil) No.15180/2025, decided on 06.01.2026.

¶21

3

¶22

substantial period of time and relegating her to another court of competent jurisdiction as observed by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 would no more be required as there is no factual dispute left. 22. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and MB University is directed to issue the marksheets of 5th to 10th semester, the degree and any other relevant documents, if any, to the Appellant within four weeks from today.”

¶23

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the basis of instructions imparted to her, submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered in terms of Pratima Das² . That the petitioner was a bonafide student of respondent No.2University and had cleared his examination. That due to a clerical error, petitioner’s name was not included in the admission disclosure list sent to HPPERC, instead, the name of one Sh. Gulzar Singh was erroneously mentioned in place of petitioner’s name and roll number.

¶24

In view of above and taking note of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered in terms of Pratima Das.² The present petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to issue DMC’s and degree alongwith relevant documents if any, to the petitioner.

¶25

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶26

April 07, 2026 yogesh

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Sushil Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. 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

M/S Mehak Enterprises Vs UOI and Others

Akash Deep Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Bhag Chand (Deceased through LRs Gian Chand and Others) Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nardeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bhagat Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Rana Enterprises Vs State of Hp and Others