Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arnav Tandon vs State Of H.P. And Others on 18 September, 2025
( 2025:HHC:32988 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
LPA No.625 of 2025 a/w LPA Nos.643, 644, 645,
646, 647, 663, 66, 665, 666, 667, 668 & 672 of 2025
Decided on: 18th September, 2025
__________________________________________________
.
LPA No.625 of 2025
Arnav Tandon ....appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.643 of 2025
State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants
Versus
Anika Butail and anr. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.644 of 2025
State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants
Versus
Tanvi Thakur and anr. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.645 of 2025
State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants
Versus
Akshit Thakur and anr. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.646 of 2025
State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants
Versus
Aarav Potan and anr. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.647 of 2025
State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants
Versus
Nikshay Sharma and anr. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:22:54 :::CIS
LPA No.663 of 2025
Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant
Versus
.
Aarav Potan and ors. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.664 of 2025
Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant
Versus
Arushi Sharma and ors. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.665 of 2025
Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant
Versus
Nikshay Sharma and ors. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.666 of 2025
Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant
Versus
Akshit Thakur and ors. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.667 of 2025
Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant
Versus
Anika Butail and ors. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.668 of 2025
Atal Medical and Research University Mandi ....appellant
Versus
Tanvi Thakur and ors. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
LPA No.672 of 2025
State of H.P. and anr. ....appellants
Versus
Arushi Sharma and anr. ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:22:54 :::CIS
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
.
For the appellant(s): Mr. Mohit Thakur, Mr. Sandeep Kumar
Pandey, Advocates & Mr. Gobind Korla,
Additional Advocate General, for the
appellants, in the respective cases.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Mr. Mukul
Sood, Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Ms. Sneh
Bhimta, Mr. Mukul Sharma & Mr.
Janesh Gupta, Advocates, Mr. Sandeep
Kumar Pandey Advocate, and Mr.
Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate
r General, for the respondents, in the
respective cases.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
In the present set of appeals which have now been filed
both by the State and the University, apart from the aggrieved
persons, who were not party in the writ petition, consideration is
sought of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on
29.07.2025 in CWP No.12045 of 2025 titled as Ms. Anika Butail
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith five other
connected matters.
2. The writ petitioners in the writ petition were seeking the
eligibility criteria for the Academic Session 2025, changed by
Annexure P-3 to be quashed and the old eligibility criteria (Annexure
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
P-2) for Academic Session 2024 be allowed to continue and they be
allowed to sit for counselling as per the same. In sum and
substance, the grouse of the petitioners was that the child should
.
have passed 10+1 or equivalent 10+2 from a recognized schools or
colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to
the relevant Boards.
3. A perusal of Annexure P-3 would go on to show that it
is a Common/Centralized Counselling Prospectus for Under-
Graduate Medical/Dental Courses for Admission to MBBS & BDS
Courses based on Merit of NEET-UG-2025 for Session 2025-26.
4. Apparently, for the earlier year i.e. Academic Session
2024-25, the said condition was not there and the bona fide
Himachali Certificate would suffice.
5. Similarly, in CWP No.11839 of 2025 titled Tanvi
Thakur vs. State of H.P. and ors., the challenge was to Section 4
Clause 2(i) of the Prospectus for the year 2025-26.
6. The learned Single Judge had taken up the matter
firstly on 25.07.2025, giving the petitioner liberty to upload her
candidature on the website for the purpose of counselling which
was to abide by the final decision of the writ petition and the matter
was listed for 29.07.2025. On the said date, with the consent of
counsel for the parties, the petitions were disposed of without calling
for the reply.
7. Vide order dated 11.08.2025 while staying the
operation of the said judgment, we noticed the following
.
contentions:-
"It is brought to our notice that leave to appeal has been filed on
account of applicant being an aggrieved party and directly
affected by the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on
29.07.2025. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed in CWP No.1353 of 2018, titled Shivam
Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided
on 31.07.2018.
2. It is pointed out that the said case had gone to third judge on
account of divergence in the opinion, as such, and the matter was
thereafter taken to the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 23025-
23026/2018, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Shivam
Sharma. Though interference was not made, as such, specifically,
but vide order dated 29.08.2018 it was held that the judgment
passed by the High Court was not to be treated as a precedent.
3. It is further submitted that reliance had been placed by the
Apex Court at that point of time on the judgment in writ Petition [C]
No.766 of 2018, titled Rajdeep Ghosh versus State of Assam &
others, decided on 17.08.2018, wherein it was held that if parents
have moved residence outside in private employment and the
wards have been obtaining education outside, they are not likely
to come back, thus, their exclusion as such, cannot be said to be
irrational or illegal.
4. The same issue had again come up in CWP No.5308 of 2020,
titled Harshit Bansal versus State of H.P. and others alongwith
connected matter, decided on 23.11.2020, before the Co-ordinate
Bench wherein the said fact was taken into consideration and it
was held that exclusion, as such, was not liable to be held bad
and it was also held that such parents had been rightly excluded
by the State from the exemption and the classification was well
founded, which cannot be said to be arbitrary.
5. The said decision was then challenged in SLP[C] No.
14693/2020, titled Meghna Guleria versus The State of
.
Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 17.12.2020 but to no
avail. It is thus submitted that counsel for the State did not apprise
the Court regarding subsequent developments and the judgments
delivered. From the judgment under consideration it would be
clear that it was passed at the initial stage, without even calling for
a reply and with the consent of the State.
6. Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate
General and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate, accept
notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 and respondent No.3,
respectively.
7. Issue notice to respondent No.4, returnable for 25.08.2025, on
taking steps within two days.
CMP No.__________of 2025 in CMPST No. 40964 of 2025
Notice in the aforesaid terms to respondent No.4.
8. Operation of judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP
No.12045 of 2025, titled as Ms. Anika Butail Versus State of HP &
Ors. alongwith connected matters, decided on 29.07.2025, shall
remain stayed.
9. Counsel for the applicant shall take steps to implead the other
writ petitioner's also by filing an appropriate application."
8. Thereafter various applications came to be filed for
intervention by the writ petitioners and for impleadment of them by
the appellant and consequential orders have been passed.
9. Counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents herein
have now sought to argue on merits of the case to justify and
sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. It is also been
brought to our notice that apart from the observations made by us in
the earlier order dated 11.09.2025, subsequently the Apex Court
had also passed an order on 01.09.2025 in Civil Appeal arising out
.
of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21536-21588 of 2024, the State
of Telangana & others vs. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram &
others, wherein also the view taken is that students who study in
other States are not liable to be adjusted in the State quota.
10. Reliance has also been made to the judgment in
Rajdeep Ghosh (supra), which we had also referred to. Thus, it is
apparent that pleadings were never complete as such before the
learned Single Judge. The factual matrix has also been thrashed out
by us in the order dated 11.08.2025, giving the reasoning that the
judgment in Rajdeep Ghosh and Harshit Bansal (supra) had not
been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
11. In such circumstances, the counsels are also agreed
that the matter would necessarily have to be sent back for decision
afresh on merits.
12. Resultantly, since not only the State is aggrieved apart
from the University and the affected parties, we allow the present
appeals and remand the matter to learned Single Judge. It is open
to the appellant in LPA No.625 of 2025 titled Arnav Tandon vs. State
of H.P. and ors. and other aggrieved persons to file appropriate
applications to be impleaded in view of the fact that the interest of
several persons was involved which was another aspect on which
interference was to be done since it is a settled principle that the
.
terms of the prospectus are binding as such on all concerned until
quashed.
13. Needless to say that since the matter is remanded to
the learned Single Judge, the University and the State should
complete the pleadings at the earliest since the academic interest of
the candidates is involved.
14. The matter to come up before the learned Single Judge
on 23.09.2025 as per Roster.
( G.S. Sandhawalia )
Chief Justice
18th September, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma )
Judge
(ankit)
