Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly RoundUp: November 6 - November 12, 2023

H.P. Public Service Commission VS Roop Lal and others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 70

Abhishek Arora Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 71

Mohammad Nadeem Akram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 72

Chaman Lal & others Vs State of H.P. & others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 73

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State Of HP 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 74

Judgments/Orders:

Merit-cum-Seniority Distinct From Seniority-cum-Merit, Can't Promote Less Meritorious Sr Candidate Over More Meritorious Jr Candidate In Former: HP High Court

Case Title: H.P. Public Service Commission VS Roop Lal and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 70

The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that the tendency to mix 'seniority-cum-merit' and 'merit-cum-seniority' principles should be avoided while deciding promotion cases since the two concepts have distinct meanings and applications.

A bench comprising Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyostna Rewal Dua referenced Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and another Vs. High Court of Gujarat 2023 to reiterate that promoting a less meritorious senior candidate over a more meritorious junior candidate was unacceptable in cases following the 'merit-cum-seniority' principle.

'Only He Was Injured In Road Accident, Offence Not Against Society': HP High Court Quashes Rash Driving Case Against Advocate

Case Title: Abhishek Arora Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 71

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate accused under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) holding that the personal nature of an offence can render continued criminal proceedings unjust.

Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that only the petitioner had been injured in the accident and there were no other casualties, thereby disqualifying it as an offence committed against society at large.

“The allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner. It is not in dispute that no other person, except the petitioner himself, had sustained injury in the aforesaid accident, as such, the allegations cannot be construed to be in the nature of an offence alleged to have been committed against the Society at large”.

Conviction Of Accused May Be Based On Statements Of Official Witnesses After Strict Scrutiny: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Nadeem Akram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 72

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that evidence from official witnesses should not be doubted merely because of their official status and asserted that the presumption is that every witness is impartial and independent unless proven contrary.

However, a bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Ranjan Sharma also clarified that before basing a conviction on the evidence of an official witness, strict scrutiny is required.

"..it is settled law that evidence of official witnesses is not to be disbelieved or discarded, merely for the reasons that they are official witnesses. Presumption is that every witness is impartial and independent, unless proved contrary. There is no presumption for doubting the credibility of official witnesses, in principle. Statements of official witnesses can be the basis for the conviction of the accused; however, before basing conviction on the evidence of official witness, strict scrutiny with care and caution is required. In cases where the evidence of the official witnesses is found to be cogent, reliable and credible, conviction can be based only on the evidence of the official witnesses."

State A Model Employer, Can't Use Contractual Appointments To Deny Workers Service Benefits: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Chaman Lal & others Vs State of H.P. & others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 73

The Himachal Pradesh High Court criticised the state government for its exploitative employment practices and observed that the state is expected to uphold the highest standards as a Model Employer and guardian of citizens' rights.

A bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin Chander Negi further added that offering contractual appointments at the outset, purely to withhold rightful benefits from employees, is inconceivable from the state.

Can Offences Under POCSO Act Be Quashed If Accused Marries Victim? Himachal Pradesh High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

Case Title: Ranjeet Kumar Vs State Of HP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 74

The Himachal Pradesh High Court questioned the viability of quashing cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) based on a compromise between the parties.

Disagreeing with the views taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court which quashed the FIRs under the Act in similar circumstances, Justice Virendra Singh has referred the matter to a larger bench. The bench observed,

“Since, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of quashing the FIR, on the basis of compromise, in heinous offences, like the present one, as such, this matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice, for referring the same, to the larger Bench”.