Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249

Nominal Index:

Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246

Veeku v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247

Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248

Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249

State Cannot Deny Increment & Benefits To Chief Justice's Staff Once CJ Grants Extension Of Service Under Article 229: HP High Court

Case Name: Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once the Chief Justice grants extension of service to his Principal Private Secretary with full consequential benefits under Article 229 of the Constitution, the administrative establishment does not have any right to seek further clarification from the State.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj stated that: “In our considered opinion, once the order of re-extension had been specifically passed, the query was not required to be made, which has led to the unsavoury situation”

Person Who Set Paper Is Best Person To Verify, Court Can't Override Expert View In Exam Matters: HP High Court

Case Name: Veeku v/s State of H.P. and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the opinion of a subject expert cannot be substituted by the Court unless it is demonstrably wrong on the face of the record.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “…opinion given by expert cannot be substituted by Court, until same on the face of it is wrong… best person to verify the correctness… is the person who has set-up the paper.”

Electricity Ombudsman Can't Decide Review Petition In Absence Of Both Parties: HP High Court

Case Name: Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Ombudsman while deciding a review petition cannot act contrary to Regulation 37(8) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations and decide in complete absence of both parties.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The impugned order demonstrates that while dismissing the review petition it inserted certain portions in the earlier order… This also could not have been done… in the absence of the parties… insertions… can be done only after providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.”

University Cannot Reject Candidate's Degree For Recruitment After Accepting Him For PhD Based On Same Qualification: HP High Court

Case Name:Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a university can't apply inconsistent standards by treating a candidate's Master's degree as an eligible subject for PhD admission but ignoring the same qualification during selection for the post of Assistant Professor.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “...respondents are estopped from adopting different yardsticks while considering M.Sc. (Botany) as 'concerned' subject for Ph.D. and ignoring the same... for the post of Assistant Professor.”