Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes Down State Rules On VC Appointments In Agricultural Universities, Says UGC Regulations PrevailCase Name: Narender Kumar Sankhyan, Sanjeev Kumar Sankhyan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 109The Himachal Pradesh High Court has struck down provisions of the State's amended Universities Act governing the appointment of...
Case Name: Narender Kumar Sankhyan, Sanjeev Kumar Sankhyan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 109
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has struck down provisions of the State's amended Universities Act governing the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, holding that subordinating the appointment to the aid and advice of the State Government was in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and beyond the legislative competence of the State.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “...to subordinate the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor to the aid and advice of the State Government in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018, is beyond legislative competence of the State Legislation and is declared ultra vires the Constitution of India and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956...”
Case Name: Ankush Indoria v/s State Election Commission & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 110
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot halt the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti on the ground that allegations of electoral irregularities or malpractices are pending police inquiry.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “Sub Divisional Magistrate's action… to halt the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Indora… is wholly untenable, manifestly illegal and contrary to rule of law. Such action lacks statutory backing. It exceeds the power conferred upon him as an Executive Magistrate and transgresses the constitutional mandate.”
Case Name: Neel Chand v/s Divisional Commissioner, Mandi & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 111
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that merely because a person is deaf and dumb, it cannot be presumed that he is of unsound mind so as to necessitate appointment of a guardian under Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: "Merely because Sh. Som Dev was Deaf and Dumb, would not mean that Sh. Som Dev was a person of unsound mind which is the fundamental requirement for proceeding under Order 32 Rule 3 of CPC. That situation will arise if it is proved that a Deaf and Dumb person is incapable of protecting his interest in the subject property due to mental infirmity."
Case Name: Pallavi Ramchaik v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 112
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of disrupting court proceedings, holding that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who was presiding over the court at the time could not have directly approached the police.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Since the complainant herein was presiding over the Court at the time when the alleged disruption was caused by the petitioner, he could have made a complaint in writing to the Court to which his Court is subordinate.…the complainant…ought to have made a complaint in writing either directly to the superior court or to some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.”
Case Name: Dr.Juhi Manhas v/s State of H.P. & ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 113
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a commissioning mother is entitled to maternity leave on par with any other female government servant, quashing the State authorities' decision to deny such leave to Dr. Juhi Manhas.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked;“The petitioner, having become a commissioning mother on two occasions, has a right to be granted maternity leave on both the occasions and the act of the respondents of denying maternity leave to her is completely unsustainable in law".
Case Name: Dr.Mukesh Surya v/s State of H.P. & ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 114
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a co-employee has no locus standi to challenge the ACR grading of a colleague merely because the latter's higher grading has resulted in his or her supersession in promotion.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Once respondent No.7 has been graded as 'Outstanding', keeping in view the 'Very Good' given in the rating by the reporting authority as well as by the reviewing authority, no interference is called for by this Court at the instance of the petitioner who has no locus to challenge the ACRs of his colleagues.”
Case Name: Dinesh Kumar v/s State of H.P.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 115
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the expression “khufia Suragh Barari” used in a police diary entry does not signify specific prior information of an NDPS offence so as to trigger the mandatory compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Plea of the applicant that 'khufia Suragh Barari' means prior information of the offence is misconceived. … Suragh Barari does not mean the prior information of commission of offence. It is general search or endeavour to obtain secret information apprehending possibility of commission of offence at some place or area.”
Case Name: State of H.P. & ors. v/s Suresh Kumar & Anr.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 116
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the time limit prescribed under the service rules for correction of an employee's date of birth must be strictly adhered to, and courts cannot permit a belated correction merely on equitable considerations.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The rules providing a time limit for the change in the date of birth are to be strictly followed and cannot be ignored on equitable consideration. Once the rule provides that the entry can be corrected within a period of 2 years, it is impermissible for the Courts to hold that the entry can be corrected beyond the period of 2 years on any equitable consideration.”
Case Name: S v/s S
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 117
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a husband's financial constraints, lack of employment, poor business performance or outstanding loans cannot be used as an escape route to avoid his obligation to pay maintenance to his wife, including a divorced wife.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Plea of the husband that he does not have the means to pay... due to financial constraints... cannot be permitted to be an escape route for the husband to avoid payability of maintenance to the wife, including divorced wife. The absolute right of the wife for maintenance cannot be sacrificed and subrogated for financial constraints, arising due to the asset construction or business etc.”
Case Name: Anil Soni v/s Praveen Kumar Saini & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 118
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a defamation complaint against the editor of a newspaper, holding that publication of a news report based on true and undisputed facts, particularly where the complainant's clarification was also sought and published, could not amount to defamation.
Justice Sandeep Sharma “Since news item, which is being claimed to be defamatory, was based upon true facts, coupled with the fact that clarification was sought from the complainant and thereafter such clarification was also published in the same newspaper, act of publishing news item by the petitioner cannot be said to be an act of defaming the complainant.”
Case Name : Ishan Dogra vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 119
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh held that improved marks obtained through re-valuation or re-examination relate back to the date of the original qualification and must be considered for eligibility/merit.
Case Name: Vicky Rana v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 120
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a convict's Nepalese citizenship, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny parole when his family has been residing in India for several decades.
Justice Rakesh kainthla remarked that: “the parole could not have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a citizen of Nepal when his family members are residing at Nanital for 30-35 years.”
Case Name: Kulwinder Singh v/s State of HP & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 121
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, to circulate Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 along with necessary guidelines to all Investigating Officers, after observing that prosecution cases have failed due to lapses in collecting evidence relating to the age of child victims.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma remarked that:“To avoid similar lapse in investigation, Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh is directed to circulate provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 alongwith necessary guidelines/instructions to all Investigating Officers in Himachal Pradesh.”
Case Name: Leela Devi v/s State of HP & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 122
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that past service rendered on a lower post cannot be counted towards service on a higher post for claiming service benefits unless the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules expressly permit such counting.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “The service rendered on post of Dai cannot be counted towards the service rendered on post of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife unless the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for post of an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife expressly provided for counting post-service for service benefits and the petitioner has failed to make out a case under the Statutory Rules.”
Case Name: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Jamana & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 123
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a transport vehicle being operated without a valid permit and fitness certificate amounts to a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “Since the offending vehicle was not having permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident, therefore, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated. Therefore, the tribunal below has erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company.”
Case Name: Tara Chand v/s Devinder
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 124
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a claim seeking recognition of a prescriptive right of way, holding that an easementary right by prescription cannot be established unless the alleged passage is specifically pleaded and clearly identified.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed:“In the absence of requisite pleadings as to the acquisition of easementary right of passage by way of prescription and in the absence of specific identification of the passage, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs have not acquired a right of easement of passage through the land in dispute.”
Case Name: Manju Devi v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 124
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that judicial reassessment of comparative merit, including marks awarded in an interview by a duly constituted Selection Committee, is impermissible in the absence of mala fides, bias or violation of statutory rules or the applicable policy.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Even judicial re-assessment of comparative merit, including award of marks in Interview, by a duly constituted Selection Committee does not fall within the domain of this Court. Moreover, the Selection Committee had awarded marks to candidates in terms of seven parameters out of a total 60 marks, as per the SMC Scheme-Policy.”
Case Name: Shyam Veer v/s State of H.P.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 125
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that “penetration to any extent” is sufficient to constitute penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), even in the absence of physical injuries on the child.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Therefore, the act of the appellant by rubbing or touching his penis at the mouth of anus or slightest attempt to insert, amounts to penetrative sexual assault even in absence of any injury in the anus, because Section 3(1) provides that penetration to any extent…”
Case Name: Subhash Chand & others v/s M/s Competent Automobiles Co.Ltd.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 126
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an executing court cannot re-consider or re-decide issues that have already been adjudicated by the trial and appellate courts and have attained finality.
Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “The learned Executing Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider/re-decide those averments… as the suit of the plaintiff-decree holder has been decreed, which has attained finality.”
Case Name: School Management Committee v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 127
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the Government's decision to merge Government Middle School, Sandyar, Bilaspur, with Government Senior Secondary School, Chhat, observing that the decision could not be termed arbitrary when the students had easy access to the nearby school.
The Division Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel and Justice Yogesh Jaswal stated that: “We might have had interfered with the order, had the distance of the School…been such that it was not possible for the students to have had easy access to the said School…we do not find any arbitrariness in the impugned decision.”