Shoket Ali Vs the State of Hp and Others

The case set up by the petitioner is that he took admission in B. Pharmacy (Allopathy) four years degree course in respondent No.4–University in the year 2014. He appeared in all eight semester examinations for the course in question. Detailed Marks Cards for all the eight semesters were issued to him. He cleared the said degree course in the year 2018. Provisional Degree was also

¶14

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

¶15

2

¶16

awarded to him. Petitioner required his final degree of B. Pharmacy (Allopathy). He requested respondent No.4 for releasing the same. Despite repeated representations of the petitioner, written and oral, final degree of B. Pharmacy (Allopathy) was not issued to him. Based upon the verification report dated 17.01.2025, the petitioner was apprised by the respondents that though his name appears in the green sheet register and in the approved list, however, because of non-availability of disclosure list for the year 2014-15, the documents of the petitioner cannot be verified.

¶17

In the above background, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to issue B. Pharmacy (Allopathy) Degree.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶19

the issue involved in the 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

¶20

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

¶21

3

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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.

¶24

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 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.

¶25

22. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and MB University is directed to issue the marksheets of 5^th to 10^th semester, the degree and any other relevant documents, if any, to the Appellant within four weeks from today.”

¶26

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5-

¶27

University, on the basis of instructions imparted to her, submits that the case of the petitioner is not covered in terms of Pratima Das² . That the petitioner was a bonafide student of respondent No.4-University and had cleared his examination. That due to non-availability of disclosure list of B. Pharmacy (Allopahty) Degree course for the year 2014-15 with the respondent-University, petitioner’s

¶28

4

¶29

documents could not be verified, though he has cleared all his semester examinations.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that in Priya Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others³ , 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 09, 2026 Judge Mukesh

¶34

3 CWP No.2690 of 2024 decided on 22.04.2025

Shoket Ali v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoket Ali 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

Sudarshan Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Desh Raj Vs Rohit Jamwal

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs M. Sudha Devi and Anr.

Nek Singh Vs the UOI and Others

Balbir Singh and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others