1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5128 of 2011 Decided on: 12.7.2011 Shreya Mishra ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan, Goel, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate No. 1 & 2. General. For respondent No. 3: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(A)That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the counselling scheduled for 15.7.2011 and subsequent dates for admission into Graduation Courses (MBBS courses) in the two Medical Colleges of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and admit her to the said course if the petitioner on the strength of her merit is able to obtain admission in the course in the process of counselling. (B)That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 Respondents to issue a corrigendum by carrying out necessary amendments/corrections in Form No. 2 to be submitted by a candidate at the time of counselling so that candidates like the petitioner who are children of employees of Himachal Pradesh and serving within the State, also have a column in Form No. 2 to submit their particulars or in the alternative direct the Respondents not to insist the petitioner to fill column 11 and 12 of Form 2.” 2. The learned Deputy Advocate General has made available instruction dated 11.7.2011 addressed to the Controller of Examination, H.P. University, Shimla-5, which is taken on record. The instruction reads as follows: “I am directed to refer to your letter No. HPU (CPMPT)-106 ET/2011 dated 5.7.2011 on the subject cited above and to clarify that the employees of SJVNL are covered under the definition of “employees of autonomous bodies partially financed by the H.P. Government as per Clause A(1) of Chapter” Eligibility at page 6 of the Prospectus of HPCPMET-2011.” 3. In view of the above instruction, the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the counselling without insisting for any information in coumns 11 and 12 of From 2. 3 3. In view of the above instruction, the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the counselling without insisting for any information in coumns 11 and 12 of From 2. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. A duly authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 12, 2011 (Justice V.K. Sharma) (Lsp/hl) Judge.