{"id":129085,"date":"2004-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004"},"modified":"2015-07-16T16:17:01","modified_gmt":"2015-07-16T10:47:01","slug":"suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6275 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nSUMAN VERMA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nArijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Arising from Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 8809 of 2004)<\/p>\n
Thakker, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated
\nApril 2, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in
\nC.W.J.C. No.4106 of 2004.  By the said order, the High Court
\nconfirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
\n(“CAT” for short) Patna Bench, Patna on March 9, 2004 in Original
\nApplication No.307 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
The case of the appellant herein is that she passed her
\nMatriculation Examination from Bihar School Examination Board,
\nPatna in 1983 in Second Division securing 531 marks out of 900
\nmarks.  She passed B.A. with Honours from Muzaffarpura in 1st
\nDivision in 1988.  In the year 1996, she got her name enrolled with
\nthe Employment Exchange. She was possessing agricultural land of
\n10 Kathas having purchased from one Dwarka Prasad by a registered
\nsale deed dated 1st March, 1995.  She was also having a residential
\nhouse in village Khajuhathi.\n<\/p>\n
According to the appellant, a post of Extra Departmental
\nBranch Post Master (“EDBPM” for short), Khajuhathi Post Office,
\nBlock Manjhi fell vacant as the EDBPM, Post Office, Khajuhathi got
\npromotion.  A notification was, therefore, issued for filling of the said
\nvacancy and names of eligible candidates were called from Regional
\nEmployment Exchange, Chhapra vide a letter dated 14th October,
\n1996.  According to the appellant, nine names were sent by the
\nEmployment Exchange.  The appellant was found eligible, qualified
\nand most suitable.  Accordingly, the appellant was appointed to the
\nsaid post by an order dated December 13, 1996.  Since then, she is
\nworking as EDBPM, Khajuhathi.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant stated that though respondent No.6 was neither
\neligible nor qualified to be appointed as EDBPM, she was aggrieved
\nby the appointment of the appellant and the action taken by the
\nauthorities and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
\n(CAT) by filing Original Application challenging the appointment of
\nthe appellant.  It was contented by respondent No.6 before the CAT
\nthat though she was eligible and qualified and was more meritorious
\ninasmuch as she had obtained 584 marks out of 900 marks as against
\nthe appellant who had obtained 531 marks at the Matriculate
\nexamination, she was not appointed.  It was also her case that she
\npossessed agricultural land as required and proof of having possessed
\nsuch agricultural land was produced by her.  It was, therefore,
\nobligatory for the authorities to consider her case and she ought to
\nhave been preferred as against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The CAT after considering the rival contentions of the parties,
\nallowed the petition holding that the case of the applicant before the
\nCAT (respondent No.6 herein) had been ignored on flimsy grounds
\nkeeping aside the merits of the contesting candidates.  Resultantly, the
\norder dated 13th December, 1996 was set aside by the CAT and a
\ndirection was issued to appoint respondent No.6 (applicant before the
\nCAT) forthwith.  The Tribunal also observed that since respondent
\nNo.6 (appellant herein) was working since several years, on account
\nof delay in disposal of the Original Application, the authorities were
\ndirected to consider if she could be appointed “in the vicinity if and
\nwhen such vacancy arises” provided she is otherwise fit and eligible
\nfor such appointment.\n<\/p>\n
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CAT, the appellant
\napproached the High Court of Patna.  The High Court, however,
\nconfirmed the decision of CAT and dismissed the petition.  Against
\nthe said decision, therefore, the appellant has approached this Court.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  Mr.
\nGoswami, learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously urged
\nthat respondent No.6 was neither eligible nor qualified to be appointed
\nas EDBPM and she was, therefore, rightly ignored by the authorities.
\nDrawing the attention of the court to the notification issued by the
\nauthorities, the counsel submitted that it was absolutely necessary that
\nthe candidate must have possessed sufficient landed property in
\nhis\/her name and he\/she was required to produce the relevant record
\nin token of having possessed such property.  In the instant case,
\nrespondent No.6 did not possess immovable property and the said fact
\nwas duly considered by the authorities in its proper perspective and a
\ndecision was taken that she was not eligible.  The CAT ought not to
\nhave interfered with such a decision and should not have issued
\ndirection to the authorities to appoint her.  The order, therefore,
\ndeserves to be set aside.  It was also argued that a totally irrelevant
\nand extraneous factor was kept in mind by CAT of marks obtained by
\ntwo candidates at the Matriculation Examination.  The counsel
\nsubmitted that the necessary educational qualification was passing of
\nMatriculation Examination and not marks obtained in the said
\nexamination.  Once a candidate is eligible, his case is required to be
\nconsidered in accordance with the guidelines and norms fixed by the
\nDepartment and there can be no “preference” of one over the other.
\nThe said fact, therefore, should not have weighed with the authority
\nand on that ground also, the decision is vulnerable.  It was contended
\nthat a direction was issued by CAT to “appoint” respondent No.6.  No
\nsuch direction could have been issued by CAT even if it was satisfied
\nthat the action taken by the authorities was not in consonance with
\nlaw.  The limited direction which could be issued could be to set aside
\nthe decision taken by the authorities and to consider the matter afresh
\nin accordance with law.  Finally, it was submitted that the appellant
\nwas found to be most suitable by the authorities and was appointed as
\nearly as in 1996.  About eight years are over and she is working as
\nEDBPM.  If at this stage, the appointment is cancelled, serious
\nprejudice will be caused to her.  It was, therefore, urged that even if
\nthis Court is of the view that the action taken by the authorities could
\nnot be termed legal or lawful, in peculiar facts and circumstances of
\nthe case, the appointment of the appellant may not be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Harish Chandra, learned senior counsel for the Union of
\nIndia supported the case of the appellant.  It may, however, be stated
\nthat the authorities have not challenged the decision of CAT before
\nthe High Court or in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Amit Pawan, the learned counsel for respondent No.6, on
\nthe other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal and
\nconfirmed by the High Court.  It was urged that respondent No.6 was
\neligible and qualified.  She possessed agricultural property as per the
\nrequirement of the Notification.  Referring to the conditions in the
\nNotification issued by the Department of Posts, the counsel submitted
\nthat respondent NO.6 fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the
\nNotification.  She was the permanent resident of the village.  She had
\npassed her Matriculate Examination and secured more marks than the
\nmarks secured by the appellant herein.  She had adequate means of
\nincome from independent source of livelihood and necessary
\ncertificate had been produced by her.  It was stated that pursuant to the
\ngift deed dated October 14, 1996, she became the owner of
\nagricultural land.  The last date for submission of the applications was
\n12th November, 1996.  Respondent No.6 became owner of agricultural
\nland on October 29, 1996, i.e. before the last date of submission of
\napplication.  The mutation entry, however, could be made on
\nNovember 22, 1996.  It is thus clear, submitted the counsel, that
\nrespondent No.6 became owner of immovable property prior to the
\nlast date of submission of application, but the mutation entry could be
\neffected in Revenue Record subsequently.  But from that, it cannot be
\nsaid that respondent No. 6 did not possess agricultural land on the last
\ndate of submission of application.  Entry in Revenue Record is
\nimmaterial so far as the title or ownership of the land is concerned.
\nThat fact, therefore, could not have been considered by the authorities
\nand the CAT committed no error of law or of jurisdiction in setting
\naside the action of the authorities and directing them to appoint
\nrespondent No.6 as she was more meritorious.  It was also submitted
\nthat since the relevant education qualification is Matriculation, marks
\nobtained at the said examination would indeed be relevant and the
\nTribunal was wholly justified in placing reliance on marks obtained at
\nthe said examination.  The order, therefore, required no interference.
\nIt was also confirmed by the High Court.  Respondent No.6 had
\napproached the CAT as soon as the action was taken by the
\ndepartment but CAT took time in final disposal of the matter which
\nshould not come in the way of respondent No.6 in getting appropriate
\nrelief.  In any case, appropriate observations have been made by the
\nTribunal to accommodate the appellant, if it is possible. The counsel,
\ntherefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
\ngone through the record, we are of the view that the decision rendered
\nby the CAT and confirmed by the High Court needs no interference.
\nIt is clear from the notification and the conditions laid down therein
\nthat both, appellant as well as respondent No. 6 were qualified. So far
\nas education qualification is concerned, both have passed Matriculate
\nexamination.  Clause D of the notification required a candidate to
\nhave passed Matriculate or equivalent examination.  It also stated that
\nno weightage would be given to higher qualification.  It is thus clear
\nthat the authorities were to consider the factum of passing of
\nMatriculation examination.  From the record, it is further clear that
\nwhereas the appellant had obtained 531 marks out of 900 marks,
\nrespondent No. 6 had obtained 584 marks.  Respondent No. 6 was
\nthus more meritorious so far as marks obtained at the Matriculation
\nexamination was concerned.  It may be stated at this stage that it is not
\neven the case of the Department that respondent No. 6 did not possess
\nrequisite educational qualification.\n<\/p>\n
The consideration weighed with the authority was that the
\nappellant was having agricultural land in her name, while respondent
\nNo. 6 did not possess agricultural land and thus she was not eligible.
\nNow, it is the case of respondent No. 6 that she had become owner of
\nthe agricultural land on the basis of the gift-deed dated October 14,
\n1996, before the last date of submission of application.  Mutation
\nentry could not be affected before 12th November, 1996 and it was
\ndone on 22nd November, 1996.  CAT, in our opinion, rightly held that
\nin the circumstances, it could not be held that respondent No. 6 did
\nnot possess agricultural land on the last date of submission of
\napplication form and it could not be said that she was not eligible.\n<\/p>\n
Our attention in this connection was invited by learned counsel
\nfor both the parties to a decision in Rekha Chatravarti v. University
\nof Rajasthan<\/a> (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 168.  In that case, an
\nadvertisement\/notification was issued inviting applications for the
\npost of Assistant Professors having requisite qualifications.  Some
\ncandidates had no requisite qualification.  They, however, acquired
\nsuch qualification afterwards.  The question before this Court was
\nwhether such candidates could be treated as qualified, eligible and
\nhaving acquired necessary qualification at the relevant date.  This
\nCourt held that the candidate must be qualified on the last date of
\nmaking application for the post advertised or on the date specifically
\nmentioned in the advertisement\/notification.  Qualifications acquired
\nby a candidate after such date cannot be taken as qualification for the
\npost and he cannot be appointed.\n<\/p>\n
One of the guidelines issued by this Court reads;\n<\/p>\n
“B.  The candidates selected must be qualified as
\non the last date for making applications for the posts in
\nquestion or on the date to be specifically mentioned in
\nthe advertisement\/notification for the purpose.  The
\nqualifications acquired by the candidates after the said
\ndate should not be taken into consideration, as that would
\nbe arbitrary and result in discrimination.  It must be
\nremembered that when the advertisement\/notification
\nrepresents that the candidate must have the qualifications
\nin question, with reference to the last date for making the
\napplications or with reference to the specific date
\nmentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such
\nqualifications do not apply for the posts even though they
\nare likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire
\nthem after the said date.  In the circumstances, many who
\nwould otherwise be entitled to be considered and may
\neven be better than those who apply, can have a
\nlegitimate grievance since they are left out of
\nconsideration.”           (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.
\n6 got her name mutated in Revenue Records on November 22, 1996
\nand that is the relevant date.  Last date of submission of application
\nwas 12th November, 1996.  The ratio laid down in Rekha Chaturvedi
\nthus applies to the case on hand and as respondent No. 6 was not
\neligible, her case could not be considered.\n<\/p>\n
In our considered opinion, however, the learned counsel for
\nrespondent No. 6 is right in submitting that respondent No. 6 had
\nbecome owner of agricultural land in October, 1996.  The relevant
\ndate for consideration was November 12, 1996 and before that date,
\nshe possessed such property.  Rekha Chaturvedi, in our view, supports
\nrespondent No. 6 rather than the appellant.  When respondent No. 6
\nbecame the owner of the property in October, 1996 before the last
\ndate of submission of application, she could be said to be possessing
\nagricultural land and, hence, she was eligible.  In our opinion, owning
\nof agricultural property and getting the name entered in Revenue
\nRecord are two different and distinct things.  Mutation entry does not
\nconfer right or title to the property.  Though the law is very well
\nsettled, in our opinion, the CAT was right in relying upon the decision
\nof this Court in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Others AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 2823
\nwherein this Court held that mutation entry neither creates nor
\nextinguishes title or ownership.\n<\/p>\n
In view of settled legal position, in our judgment, CAT as well
\nas the High Court were right in holding that though respondent No. 6
\nwas eligible having possessed agricultural land, her case was ignored
\nby the authorities and hence, the action was illegal and improper.  In
\nview of the fact that respondent No. 6 was more meritorious, since she
\nhad obtained more marks than the appellant, the direction of CAT to
\nappoint her cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful.  The said
\ndirection is, therefore, not interfered with.  CAT has also referred to
\npara 2 of the Executive Order dated May 10, 1991, issued by the
\nDirector General of Post, New Delhi, which reads thus;\n<\/p>\n
“The deciding factor for the selection of ED
\nBPMs\/ED SPMs should be the income and property and
\nnot the marks, has been examined threadbare but cannot
\nbe agreed to as this will introduce an element of
\ncompetitiveness in the matter of possession of property
\nand earning or income for determining the merit of
\ncandidates for appointment as ED Agents. Proof of
\nfinancial status is not only subject to manipulation but is
\nalso detrimental to merit.  When the Constitution of India
\nguarantees equal opportunity to all for their
\nadvancement, the reasonable course would be offer ED
\nemployment to the person who secured maximum marks
\nin the examination which made him eligible for the
\nappointment, provided the candidate has the prescribed
\nminimum level of property and income so that he has
\nadequate means of livelihood apart from the ED
\nAllowance.”\n<\/p>\n
Regarding appointment and continuance of the appellant for a
\nperiod of almost eight years in service, it may be stated that
\nrespondent No. 6 had approached a competent Tribunal for ventilating
\nher grievance immediately after the issuance of order in favour of the
\nappellant.  It was because of the pendency of the matter before the
\nTribunal that respondent No. 6 could not get the case decided and the
\nmatter finally adjudicated.  The learned counsel for respondent No. 6
\nis, therefore, right in submitting that the said fact should not cause
\nprejudice to respondent No. 6 who had approached the Tribunal in
\ntime. To us, the CAT is right in considering the matter in its entirety
\nand in making observations that the case of the appellant herein be
\nconsidered for appointment as EDBPM in the nearby vicinity if
\notherwise she is fit.\n<\/p>\n
No doubt relying on Rekha Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant submitted that in that case this Court after holding the
\nselection process unlawful, did not interfere with the action and
\nrefused to set aside illegal appointment on the ground that the case
\nwas heard after eight years.  In the case on hand, however, respondent
\nNo. 6 had approached the Tribunal immediately, the Tribunal
\nconsidered the facts and circumstances of the case and granted relief
\nto respondent No. 6 and also made suitable observations so that the
\npresent appellant may be accommodated if possible.  Moreover that
\norder was confirmed by the High Court.  We, therefore, see no reason
\nto disturb that direction.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed
\nand is, accordingly, dismissed.  In the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, however, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004 Author: Thakker Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6275 of 2004 PETITIONER: SUMAN VERMA RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/09\/2004 BENCH: Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129085","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSuman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-16T10:47:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T10:47:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2835,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T10:47:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-16T10:47:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T10:47:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004"},"wordCount":2835,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004","name":"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T10:47:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-24-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129085","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129085"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129085\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129085"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129085"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129085"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}