Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

   

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J. dismissed the petition filed under Sec 482 Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC') for extension of parole as the right remedy is under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The instant petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking extension of term of parole granted to the petitioner on medical grounds.

The Court noted that grant of parole to a convict/prisoner is governed by provision of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rules framed thereunder.

The Court observed that omission or commission on the part of concerned authority in granting or rejecting the claim of a prisoner under H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1968 is an administrative action, but not an action governed by provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or any other Criminal Law and therefore instead of filing petition under Section 482 CrPC, a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall be maintainable.

The Court thus dismissed the petition with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive petition and directed the Authority not to take any coercive action till 15-07-2022.

[Mohd. Margoob v. State of HP, Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 470 of 2022, decided on 21-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Vinod Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner;

Hemant Vaid, Advocate, for the Respondent.


*Arunima Boase, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “1996 Act”) does not provide for any remedy to challenge an arbitral order and was hence, against the “public policy of India”, Satyen Vaidya J. observed that,

“The term “public policy of India” carries within it innumerable facets. It is altogether a different thing to say that there is no immediate remedy available to the petitioners than to say that they have no remedy at all.”

The observation came after the Court noted that a party to arbitration proceedings has a remedy to challenge the award passed in such proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. An application was filed by the petitioners under Order 11, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC) seeking reply of the respondents, who are claimants before the Arbitrator, to the interrogatories formulated on behalf of the non-claimants/petitioner which was thereby dismissed. The grounds for dismissal were firstly, that the application was not maintainable before filing of written statement and secondly, that without the written statement of the petitioners herein on record, the application was premature as the relevance of the interrogatories could not be adjudged. Aggrieved by this, an instant petition was filed.

The Court observed that Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 1996 Act) starts with a non obstante clause, strictly prohibiting intervention by any judicial authority in matters governed by Part-I of 1996 Act except where so provided in such part. The intent of legislature is loud and clear. By making the 1996 Act a complete Code and incorporation of provision like Section 5 thereof arbitral proceedings were not only kept independent but free from any unnecessary delays also. Thus, though Section 5 of the 1996 Act cannot be a clog on powers of constitutional courts, nevertheless such powers may also not be readily available.

Reliance was placed on SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618, wherein it was observed

It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal, unless it has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act.

… We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.”

The Court, hence, refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the impugned order as being not maintainable and held that“the arbitrator though having trappings of tribunal, yet the impugned order will not be amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

[V. Kare Biotech v. Hemant Aggarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine HP 2972, decided on 21-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner;

Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate and Anaida Kuthiala, Advocate, for the respondent.

Appointments & TransfersNews


DELHI HIGH COURT


The President transfers Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Telangana High Court, as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. 


GAUHATI HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Rashmin Manharbhai Chhaya, Judge of the Gujarat High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

 


RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Shinde Sambhaji Shiwaji, Judge of the Bombay High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court with effect from the date he assumes,charge of his office.

 


UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Vipin Sanghi, Judge of the Delhi High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

 


HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Amjad Ahtesham Sayed, Judge of the Bombay High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

 


TELANGANA HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge of the Telangana High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.



KARNATAKA HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Alok Aradhe, senior-most Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court, with effect from 03.07.2022.

 

Ministry Of Law & Justice

 

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Justice Satyen Vaidya, Additional Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, to be a Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 27-4-2022]

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the appointment of Shri Justice Satyen Vaidya, Additional Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court as Permanent Judge of that High Court.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 19-4-2022]

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sureshwar Thakur, J. disposed of the petition by granting mandamus regarding quick conferment of medals in the manner as prescribed by law.

The facts of the case are such that instant petition was filed for grant of monetary as well as other benefits which are admissible to the recipient of the gallantry service medal bestowed on the petitioner and also that the award was sent through courier and was later presented on the celebrations of Himachal Day after the gap of more than 3 years. This action is against the prescribed norms for the conferment of the Award.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the way award has been conferred militates the mandate, as well as the presentation of such awards, must be during ceremonial functions of Independence Day/ Republic Day.

Counsel for respondents submitted that there was no inordinate delay in the conferment of gallantry medal as it was due to the delaying of manufacture of medals by the concerned authority which was thereby due to delay in receiving intimation from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs with respect to the gallantry award being given to the writ petitioner.

The Court observed that while promoting acts of bravery and courage, gallantry awards are made for ensuring the spirit of bravery the recipients of awards must be honored in ceremonial functions of Republic Day or Independence Day. It was also observed that delay in the conferment of gallantry awards should be deprecated.

The Court thus held “this Court deems it fit, to make a mandamus, upon the respondents to upon reflection of name(s) of the apposite awardees(s), in the apposite list, to ensure that with utmost promptness, the medals are manufactured, and, they shall ensure that the awarding of medal, upon, the recipients being promptly done, only at Republic Day or Independence day functions.”

[Vikas Sharma v. Union of India, Civil Writ Petition No. 878 of 2017, decided on 20-08-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearances

For petitioner: Mr Vijay Kumar Arora

For respondent 1 and 2: Mr Rajinder Thakur,

For respondent 3 and 4: Mr Ashwani Sharma, Mr Narender Guleria, Mr Hemant Vaid, Mr Vikrant Chandel and Mr Gaurav Sharma

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court

President appoints Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath, senior-most Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 1st July, 2021 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Lingappa Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh High Court. A notification in this regard has been issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice today.

Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath, B.Com., LL.B., was enrolled as an Advocate on 28th January, 1987. He practised for 20 years before the High Court of Karnataka, High Court of Madras and the Supreme Court of India in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour, Company, Serv.ice cases etc. He specializes in Constitutional Law. He worked in Bangalore University, Bangalore and Kuvempu University, Shimoga. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on February 18, 2008 and Permanent Judge on February 17, 2010. He was transferred to Himachal Pradesh High Court on 07.01.2019.


Ministry of Law and Justice

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner was working in the field of journalism for the past more than 13 years as the Editor of the Hindi Weekly namely ‘Him Ujala’ circulated in Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana having around 6,000/- copies circulation per week. The petitioner news weekly has been given award in the field of journalism by the Government of Himachal Pradesh i.e. ‘Laghu Patrikarita ke Kshetra me Nirantar Parkashan Hetu’, yet the accreditation of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the ground that there are certain FIRs pending against him.

Counsel for petitioners Mr Ashok Kumar Thakur submitted that the impugned action on the part of the respondent-State in stopping publication of the tenders and classified ads of the government and further not renewing the accreditation of the petitioner, is a direct attack on the freedom of press which is one of the pillars of democracy and it is imperative to ensure that there is no attack on the freedom of press and, therefore, also the action of the respondents-State is illegal.

Counsel for the respondents Mr Ashok Sharma, Mr Vinod Thakur and Mr Bhupinder Thakur submitted that the petitioner’s accreditation and suspension was placed before the Press Accreditation Committee, which is the final authority as per Rule 4 of H.P. Press Correspondents Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules’), who after scrutiny of the record decided to keep under suspension the accreditation of the petitioner till the final outcome of the criminal cases pending against him in various Courts.

The Court relied on judgment Surya Prakash Khatri v. Madhu Trehan, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 590 observed that the power of the Press is almost like nuclear power – it can create and it can destroy. Keeping this in mind, it is imperative that the owner/editor of a newspaper like a petitioner shoulder greater responsibility and in case his own conduct is under scanner, then obviously, his accreditation has to be suspended.

The Court thus held that in the instant case, the accreditation of the petitioner has simply been suspended till the final outcome of the criminal case in exercise of sub-rule (2) of 14 of H.P. Press Correspondents Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 2002.

In view of the above, petition was dismissed.[Vijay Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 7487 of 2014, decided on 09-04-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J., granted regular bail on grounds that she is a mother of an infant child dependent upon her breasts feeding.

The facts of the case are such that the victim left home for school and did not return. On her father contacting school authorities got to know that school was not open that day. He went to register a complaint at the police station under Section 363 Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC and investigation started. On investigation, it was found that her phone was being used in various locations and two numbers were contacted most frequently. The last location of the victim was Panipat after which the phone was switched off. The petitioner is the sister of the main accused Nazim who is charged under Sections 366A, 370(4), 506 and 120B IPC. The victim was recovered from the petitioner and after victim’s statement was recorded, the petitioner was brought to police station for interrogation and was arrested later. The Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code (i.e. Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail.

Counsel for the petitioners Mr Rajesh Kumar Parmar submitted that petitioner is a woman having her family and a permanent home in Village Dhakia, District Amroha, U.P., and there is no possibility of her fleeing from justice.

Counsel for the State Mr Raju Ram Rahi and Mr Nasib Singh submitted that that co-accused Ibad, who is husband of petitioner is not submitting himself to the Investigating Agency for interrogation and petitioner was actively playing role for hiding a minor girl (victim) and had been resisting handing over the girl to the police.

The Court observed that Section 437 CrPC deals with situation when accused is produced before the Magistrate and Section 439 CrPC devolves special power on the High Court and/or Court of Sessions regarding the bail and both Sections deal with different situations in different Courts, but it is also settled position that provisions contained in Sections 437 and 438 CrPC can also be taken into consideration at the time of considering bail under Section 439 CrPC. In fact, Section 437 CrPC refrains the Court, other than the High Court or Court of Sessions, from releasing a person, accused or suspect of commission of any non-bailable offence, who is arrested or detained for without warrant, or appears, or is produced before such Court and there appears reasonable ground for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death, or imprisonment for life. However, an exception has been carved out enabling such Court to release such a person on bail, in case, such person is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman, or is sick, or infirm, with the further provision that no such person shall be released without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.

The Court thus held “Considering entire facts and circumstances brought before me with respect to role of petitioner coupled with the fact that she is a mother of an infant child dependent upon her breasts feeding, I am of the opinion that at this stage, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail”.

In view of the above, petition was dismissed.[Nasrin v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 657, decided on 09-04-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J., dismissed the petition and approved the prayer for custodial interrogation.

The facts of the case are such that the daughter of the petitioner i.e. the victim left home for school and did not return. On him contacting school authorities he got to know that school was not open that day. He went to register a complaint at the police station under Section 363 Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC and investigation started. On investigation, it was found that her phone was being used on various locations and two numbers were contacted most frequently. The last location of the victim was Panipat after which the phone was switched off. The main fact that points to Nazim i.e the petitioner in the instant case being of significance is the fact that he spoke to Ibrahim who kept the victim with him as the petitioner was in Kerala. The victim was recovered and her statement was recorded after which a lot of additional facts and names came to the fore and thus Sections 366A, 370(4), 506 and 120B IPC were added. The Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code (i.e. Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest.

Counsel for the petitioners Mr Rajesh Kumar Parmar submitted that there is no overt act on the part of the petitioner in leaving the house by the victim, rather victim had voluntarily left her house and when she reached Ambala, the petitioner had only helped her by providing shelter to her and victim was not sexually abused. It is also submitted that there is no past history of petitioner involving in the commission of the same nature or any other offence.

Counsel for the State Mr Raju Ram Rahi and Mr Nasib Singh submitted that petitioner is a part of racket involved in fishing adolescent girls for throwing them in international flesh trade by trafficking. It was further submitted that accused are absconding and investigation is at the initial stage and non-cooperation of the accused persons, including petitioner, is hampering the investigation.

The Court observed that Police Officer/Investigating Officer is empowered to arrest the offender or the suspect for proper investigation of the offence as provided under Section 41 read with Section 157 CrPC. Arrest of an offender during investigation is duly prescribed in CrPC. Section 438 CrPC is an exception to general principle and at the time of exercising power under Section 438 CrPC, balance between right of Investigating Agency and life and liberty of a person has to be maintained by the Courts, in the light of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, but also keeping in mind interference by the Court directing the Investigating Officer not to arrest accused amounts to interference in the investigation. It was also observed that nature, gravity and seriousness of offence, are also amongst those several relevant factors which may compel the Court to reject or accept the bail application under Section 438 CrPC.

The Court thus held “Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and nature, gravity and seriousness of offence for the manner in which girl has been managed to be transported/travelled from Shimla to a remote village of Uttar Pradesh in an organized manner, and also for finding or ruling out possibility of amplitude and magnitude of the conspiracy, I find that prayer for custodial interrogation of the petitioner is justified and thus acceptable.” 

In view of the above, petition was dismissed.[Mohammad Nazim v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 606, decided on 06-04-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: S. K. Panigrahi, J. dismissed the bail application as there was a clear possibility of further danger to the complainant by the accused.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner lured the complainant into having physical relationship with her promising her to marry wherein she became pregnant twice, which was aborted and consent to marriage was denied by the family members of the petitioner. Hence, the complainant’s family fixed her marriage elsewhere consequent to which the petitioner posted personal photographs of the complainant along with him using fake Facebook IDs created in her name and mentioned that the complainant had a relationship with him but was marrying someone else. As a result of this, the complainant’s marriage was broken and she was defamed in society. The complainant lodged an FIR under Sections 376(1), 313, 294 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and was thereby arrested. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code seeking bail.

Counsel for the petitioners Mr N Mishra submitted that the present case has been foisted in a fabricated manner to harass the present petitioner. Hence, the petitioner should be granted bail.

The Court relied on judgment Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 13 SCC 1 and observed that if an accused from the very beginning has given a promise of marriage without any intention to fulfil that promise and in lieu of such promise that the accused will marry her, she gave her consent for sexual intercourse with the accused, then such consent would not amount to valid consent. It shall come within the ambit of the misconception of fact under Section 90 of IPC. Thus, such consent shall not excuse the accused from the charges for the offence of rape under Section 375 of IPC.

The Court however observed that the law is well settled that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent. Since the framers of the law have specifically provided the circumstances when ‘consent’ amounts to ‘no consent’ in terms of Section 375 of IPC, consent for the sexual act on the pretext of marriage is not one of the circumstances mentioned under Section 375 of IPC. Hence, the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of IPC to determine the effect of consent under Section 375 of IPC deserves a serious relook. The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous, however, the plight of the victim and the probability of the accused tarnishing the dignity of the victim and her family need to be looked at while deliberating on the question of bail.

The Court thus held “The possibility of coercion of victim’s family, repetition of similar type of offence and flee from justice cannot be ruled out in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted bail.”

In view of the above, application was dismissed.[Rinku Pradhan v, State of Odisha, BLAPL No.6629 of 2020, decided on 05-03-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ. dismissed the petition being non-maintainable.

The petitioner claiming himself to be a ‘social and public-spirited person’ has filed the instant petition for the grant of writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to identify the land in and around Shri Mata Chintpurni Ji Temple for construction of parking facility to the devotees, who used to come there to pay obeisance throughout the country.

Counsel representing the petition submitted that Mata Shri Chintpurni Temple which has been taken over by the Government under the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, has miserably failed to provide parking for devotees in and around the temple resulting in haphazard parking as also fleecing of devotees. It was further submitted that in recent times, even the local people in and around the temple made offer of their land to be gifted to the temple for the purpose of construction of parking, but the respondents did not pay any heed to accede to such request.

It was further submitted that one Sanjay Kumar S/o Babli Ram was ready and willing to offer his 4 Kanals land for the construction of parking free of costs, but the terms and conditions on which he was offering the said land i.e. one month time for operation of parking from the offered land was found to be unreasonable and the temple trust resolved to vide resolution not to accept any conditional gift and only accept unconditional gifts.

On intervening the matter, one Kewal Krishan, ExPresident, Gram Panchayat submitted that ample amount for parking facilities has been provided by the Temple trust as during Navratras and melas because of rush all traffic is stopped at Bharwain and worshipers and visitors walk upto the Temple except small taxies which are used for taking old and other people who cannot walk. Therefore, the parking site proposed by the petitioner also cannot be used in the melas and Navratra days. He further submitted that however, if someone is willing to donate the land for construction of the parking facilities, there can be no objection in providing open ground for parking without much cost of the Trust at those sites.

The Court observed that realm of policy is exclusive to the domain of the executive which may comprise both formulation of policy as well its execution and in absence of any policy, the Court cannot direct its formulation.

The Court relied on a judgment Parkash Chand v. State of H.P., AIR 2015 H.P. 42 and observed that it is the State which has power to deprive any person of property in terms of Article 300 A. The deprivation of property as observed earlier shall be only by authority of law, be it an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, but not by executive feat or order and must take place for public purpose or public interest.

The concept of eminent domain, which applies when a person is deprived of his property postulates that the purpose must be primarily public and not primarily of private interest and merely incidentally beneficial to the public.

The Court also observed that an act or law, which deprives a person of his private property for private interest, will be unlawful and unfair and undermines the rule of law and can be subjected to judicial review. Article 300A would be violated if the provisions of the law authorizing deprivation of property have not been complied with in letter and spirit. The law has to be reasonable and must comply with other provisions of the Constitution failing which it will be subject to judicial review.

The Court held the petition to be non-maintainable.[Anant Sharma v. Ashok Sharma, CWP No. 2570 of 2019, decided on 16-03-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Bhusan Barowalia JJ. dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with the transfer order also stating that the government is equally responsible for violating notifications specifically imposing a ban on transfers.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner after rendering service for a considerable time came to be promoted as Headmaster and was posted at Government High School Naila, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba. Thereafter, the petitioner on 29.09.2020 was appointed as Principal and posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Dugli, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, where he is serving till date and has filed the instant petition for grant of direction by respondent 1 for transfer from hard area to the soft area/station of the petitioner as he has completed the normal tenure in the hard area and crossed the age of 55 years and family compelling circumstances.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from a hearing problem and is under treatment from Rajiv Gandhi Post Graduate Ayurvedic College and Hospital Paprola, District Kangra, H.P. and the wife of the petitioner is also suffering from Gall Bladder stone and required proper medication and surgery and there is none in the house to look after her as their son is employed in private sector in Noida (U.P.) and two daughters are pursuing their own studies.

The Court relied on judgment Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, (1997) 2 SCC 534 and observed  “The teacher who has been kept in charge, bears more added higher responsibility and should be more exemplary. His/her character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and such is the duty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher.”

The Court further observed that the petitioner, as mentioned above, is a teacher appointed for educating students and the standards expected of a person practicing the noble teaching profession must be ideal so that the students may know and practice the best principles of civilized life. It would be a very lamentable state of affairs that when teachers who are considered as equal to God, would fall from the highest pedestal to the lowest level by caring and looking after their self-interests alone and not the interest of their pupil(s).

The Court held that the Headmasters, who are later on promoted as Principals, are in all likelihood bound to be above 55 years of age, and on being promoted as such, are liable to be transferred/served anywhere in the State. Therefore, no exception can be taken against the transfer on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the age of 55 years.

In view of the above, petition was dismissed.[Milap Chand v. State of HP, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 560, decided on 22-03-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Judges

President appoints Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court, to be a Judge of the Calcutta High Court and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Additional Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, to be a Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

 


[Notification dt. 27-07-2020]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that Justice V. Ramasubramanian is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.


[Resolution dt. 10-05-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

High Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition relating to the delay in promotion of a Head Master, a single bench comprising of Rajiv Sharma, J, reiterated the legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and any delay in the promotion by the Selection Committee for no valid reason is an infringement of that right. In the present case the petitioner had been duly considered for the post of Principal but he had retired before the actual Promotion list was out thus depriving him of the opportunity to the benefits of that post. The Court found the delay violative of his rights and thus allowed the petition. Shakti Chand Dogra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP(T) No.12590/2008, decided on 22 April 2014

To read the full judgment, click here