Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112

Nominal Index:

Rasham Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105

State of Himachal Pradesh v/s Sarojioni.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 106

Inderpal Singh v/s Himachal Pradesh Univeristy & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 107

Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108

Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 109

United India Insurance Company v/s Sita Devi & Others., United India Insurance Company v/s Joginder Singh & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 110

Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 111

Yashaswini Aggarwal v/s Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112

Printed Validity On Caste Certificate Is Insignificant If It Certifies Holder's OBC Status For Specific Financial Year: HP High Court

Case Name: Rasham Raj V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 105

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the printed validity of a period at the top of an OBC certificate becomes irrelevant if the certificate clearly certifies the applicant's OBC status for a specific financial year.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “It is the fact certified in the certificate that is material. If that certification is about status as OBC for a specific period and if the certification regarding the period of OBC status differs from a cyclostyled period, casually mentioned at the top of the certificate, the actual certificate with respect to period of OBC status will take precedence”.

Caste Assigned At Birth Doesn't Change Due To Marriage: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v/s Sarojioni

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 106

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that caste is assigned at the time of birth and does not change upon marrying a person who belongs to the Scheduled Caste.

It clarified that such a marriage does not preclude the commission of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 

Justice Rakesh Kainthla held: “Therefore, it was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the Caste is assigned to a person at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent-accused would become a member of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage and she cannot commit an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act.”

'Took Admission In 3-Yr LLB Course Without Completing Graduation': HP High Court Denies Student's Plea For Enrolment As Advocate

Case Name: Inderpal Singh v/s Himachal Pradesh University & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 107

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that admission to a three-year LLB course without completion of graduation violates the Legal Education Rules, 2008, and the candidate is ineligible for enrolment as an advocate.

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma said: “In this scenario, once appellant-petitioner had secured admission to the Three Year Law Course (in June 2014) without possessing the essential qualification of Graduation-Bachelor's Degree (which was passed on 27.07.2015). Thus, once for want of Graduation, the admission of the appellant-writ petitioner to LLB Course was bad (being ineligible) therefore, neither any locus nor any right can be said to have accrued to the appellant, an ineligible incumbent, so as to seek enrolment as an advocate, dehors the Rules”

NDPS Act | Not Permissible To Detain Person On Presumption That Blood Sample May Indicate Presence Of Heroin: HP High Court Grants Bail

Case Name: Mahesh Thakur v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 108

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a person cannot be kept in custody merely on the assumption that the blood sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory might reveal traces of heroin or that some incriminating substance would be found.

Denying the State's submission that blood samples sent by the police to forensics were likely to indicate the presence of heroin, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked: “A person cannot be detained in custody based on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him. The police have to connect the person with the commission of a crime before his detention can be justified.”

HP Land Revenue Act | Financial Commissioner Can't Interfere With Order Set Aside By District Collector Without Declaring It Illegal: High Court

Case Name: Sanjay Kumar v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 109

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order passed by the Financial Commissioner, holding that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on irrelevant and non-existent material and by interfering with the Collector's decision without declaring any legal infirmity or perversity.

Setting aside the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Justice Satyen Vaidya held that “The Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order has exceeded his jurisdiction by basing his opinion on irrelevant and non-existent material and also by interfering with the order of District Collector without declaring it to be illegal or perverse.”

Overloading Passenger Vehicle Did Not Lead To Accident, Not A Breach Of Policy: HP High Court Directs Insurance Company To Pay Compensation

Case Name: United India Insurance Company v/s Sita Devi & Others., United India Insurance Company v/s Joginder Singh & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 110

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that overloading of a passenger vehicle is not a violation or fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy unless it is related to the cause of the accident.

Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 which held that the breach on the part of the insured must show that the accident or damage that occurred was due to the breach.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked: “So far as overloading of one extra person is concerned, it is not a violation or fundamental breach of the terms of the policy having consequences of absolving Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner to pay the compensation in an accident, particularly when overloading of one person is not related to cause of the accident”.

CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 | Maternity Leave For Third Child Can't Be Denied If First Two Children Were Born Before Joining Service: HP High Court

Case Name: Archana Sharma v/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 111

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that if two children of a government servant were born before joining government service and the third child is born after joining service, maternity leave under Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 can't be denied.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “petitioner herein had given birth to two children prior to her induction in service but her prayer to grant her maternity leave, though may be qua third child of her during service, came to be made for first time. If it is so, prayer made on her behalf for grant of maternity leave deserves to be allowed.

'Meritorious Students Don't Deserve Such Treatment': HP High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On School Board For Denying Merit Certificate

Case Name: Yashaswini Aggarwal v/s Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 112

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that it is the duty of the school education board to issue a merit certificate to a candidate after their marks are increased in the revaluation process, and it cannot shift the onus onto the school authorities.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The petitioner cannot be denied the merit certificate arbitrarily just on the grounds as are propagated by the respondent- Board in its reply. The meritorious students do not deserve such treatment. Rather than rewarding her excellence, the respondent- Board has forced her to knock the doors of justice which is not appreciated”.