{"id":166377,"date":"2010-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010"},"modified":"2014-04-03T00:12:17","modified_gmt":"2014-04-02T18:42:17","slug":"vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                  W. P. No. 3049\/09 (s)\n7\/05\/2010\n      Shri V. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners.\n      Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the\nrespondents.<\/pre>\n<p>      Petitioners were appointed in the Water Resources<br \/>\nDepartment as an L. D. C.       Appointment to the post in<br \/>\nquestion is governed by the statutory provisions that is the<br \/>\nrules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, namely<br \/>\nthe Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department (Non-Gazetted<br \/>\nService) Recruitment Rules, 1969.         Under these rules,<br \/>\nL. D. C. is classified as a Class -III post and in Schedule<br \/>\nIII, the criterion for appointment to the post of L. D. C. are<br \/>\ncontained. To be eligible for appointment for the post of<br \/>\nL. D. C. under the recruitment rule, a person has to be<br \/>\nminimum 18 years of age and should not have completed 28<br \/>\nyears of age. The educational qualification prescribed for<br \/>\nappointment to the post in column 5 to the schedule<br \/>\nindicates that a person has to be matriculate and equivalent<br \/>\nexamination passed and it is only stated that the preference<br \/>\nshould be given to those who will possess the qualification<br \/>\nin the type-writing and appointed to the post if found<br \/>\neligible.   However, a condition is stipulated in the<br \/>\nappointment order of the petitioners, to the effect that<br \/>\npetitioners shall be paid increment only if they will pass the<br \/>\nHindi Typewriting test from the Board of Secondary<br \/>\nEducation or from the recognized Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Inter alia contending that the aforesaid condition<br \/>\nstipulated in the appointment order is contrary to the rules of<br \/>\n 1969 and by an executive instructions, the statutory<br \/>\nprovisions cannot be substituted, petitioners have filed this<br \/>\npetition challenging the order of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri V. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners<br \/>\ninviting my attention to the orders passed by this Court in<br \/>\nW. P. Nos. 2415\/07 (s) and 2416\/07 (s) submitted that when<br \/>\npetitioners are appointed in accordance with the recruitment<br \/>\nrule to the post in question, they have a right to claim the<br \/>\nincrement that was applicable to the pay scale at the relevant<br \/>\ntime and the increment payable to the petitioner cannot be<br \/>\ndenied on the ground that petitioners do not fulfil the<br \/>\nconditions stipulated in the appointment order, which is not<br \/>\nin accordance with the statutory provisions.          Learned<br \/>\ncounsel points out that the statutory provisions cannot be<br \/>\nsubstituted by the executive instructions and the executive<br \/>\ninstructions contrary to the statutory provisions is illegal,<br \/>\naccordingly, learned counsel prays for interference into the<br \/>\nmatter on the aforesaid ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Respondents have filed a return and it is stated by the<br \/>\nrespondents in the return that by virtue of the certain<br \/>\ncirculars issued by the State Govt. , the condition is<br \/>\nstipulated and as the condition stipulated is in accordance<br \/>\nwith the policy of the State Govt. , it is submitted that there<br \/>\nis no illegality in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Placing reliance on the order passed in W. P. No.<br \/>\n8489\/03 Ku. Vanita Dayal @ Anita Dayal Vs. State of<br \/>\nM. P. and others and certain observations made by a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court in the case of State of M. P.<br \/>\nand others Vs. Smt. Sushma Surana, 2005 (II) MPWN SN<br \/>\n 116 , learned counsel for the State emphasized that the<br \/>\ncondition for passing the Hindi Typewriting test stipulated<br \/>\nin the appointment is in accordance to law, petitioners shall<br \/>\nnot have any grievance. Shri V. Jayaraman, learned counsel<br \/>\nrefuted the aforesaid contention and submitted that the case<br \/>\nrelied upon by the State Govt. particularly in the case of<br \/>\nSushma Surana (supra), the statutory provision and<br \/>\nimplication of the same have not been taken note of, which<br \/>\nhas been considered and decided in the case of Sevakram<br \/>\nSarankar Vs. State of M. P. and others W. P. No.<br \/>\n17500\/03.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on<br \/>\nconsideration of the facts that have come on record, it is<br \/>\nclear that in the recruitment rule, the only condition and the<br \/>\nqualification prescribed for appointment to the post in<br \/>\nquestion is that a candidate has to be matriculate or<br \/>\nequivalent and in case, there are two candidates with the<br \/>\nsame qualification, preference would be given to those<br \/>\ncandidate who has passed the Hindi-typing test.           The<br \/>\nknowledge of Hindi-typing is desirable but not essential.<br \/>\nPassing of the typing examination is not a mandatory<br \/>\nrequirement when the persons like the petitioners were<br \/>\nappointed to the post. In the recruitment rule, there is no<br \/>\nsuch requirement of passing the typing examination for<br \/>\nrelease of increments.      Petitioners were appointed in<br \/>\naccordance with the recruitment rules and their increments<br \/>\nshould have to be released after completion of one year from<br \/>\nthe date of their initial appointment.       The benefit of<br \/>\nincrement as per the pay scale has to be granted to the<br \/>\n petitioners and the said right cannot be taken away by the<br \/>\nexecutive instructions. It is a well settled principle of law<br \/>\nthat the executive instructions cannot substitute and cannot<br \/>\nrun contrary to the statutory provisions. In the present case,<br \/>\nwhen there is no requirement of passing the typing<br \/>\nexamination in the statutory rule, benefit of increment as per<br \/>\nthe pay scale cannot be denied to the petitioners and the<br \/>\ncondition   imposed    by       the   executive   instructions   is<br \/>\nunsustainable.   This question has already been considered<br \/>\nand decided by a Bench of this Court in W. P. No.<br \/>\n17500\/2003 and after taking note of the recruitment rules of<br \/>\n1969, petition has to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As far as the objection of the respondents and reliance<br \/>\nplaced in the cases of Sushma Surana (supra) and Ku.<br \/>\nVanita Dayal (supra) are concerned, in the said cases, the<br \/>\nconditions imposed in the appointment order is only taken<br \/>\nnote of, and the statutory provisions is not taken note of.<br \/>\nThat being so, the said judgment will not apply in the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of the present case, that apart the said<br \/>\ncases pertain to confirmation of a probation after completing<br \/>\nthe period of probation and does not pertain to grant of<br \/>\nincrement of the pay scale applicable for a post.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the present case, petitioners having been appointed<br \/>\nin accordance with the statutory provisions, they have a<br \/>\nlegal right to seek increment of the pay scale from the date<br \/>\nof their initial appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is seen from the records that on the basis of an order<br \/>\npassed in W. P. No. 9947\/08 (s), one T. C. Mahroliya has<br \/>\nbeen granted the aforesaid benefit after considering the<br \/>\n benefit granted to another petitioner in W. P. No. 17500\/03.<br \/>\nThat being so, there is no reason for denying similar benefit<br \/>\nto the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned action<br \/>\nof the respondents in denying benefit of increment to the<br \/>\npetitioners from the due date is quashed and respondents are<br \/>\ndirected to grant benefit of increments to the petitioners in<br \/>\naccordance with the rule from the date of their initial<br \/>\nappointment. The amount of increment be released to the<br \/>\npetitioners and necessary action for conferring the benefit be<br \/>\ntaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt<br \/>\nof certified copy of this order.     In case, the monetary<br \/>\nbenefits be not paid to the petitioners within two months, the<br \/>\namount due shall be paid along with interest @ 7 % per<br \/>\nannum from the said date i.e. after two months till payment.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Petition stands allowed and disposed of, no order so as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                         (Rajendra Menon)<br \/>\n                                                Judge<br \/>\nVy\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010 W. P. No. 3049\/09 (s) 7\/05\/2010 Shri V. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents. Petitioners were appointed in the Water Resources Department as an L. D. C. Appointment to [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-02T18:42:17+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-02T18:42:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1204,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-02T18:42:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-02T18:42:17+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-02T18:42:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010"},"wordCount":1204,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010","name":"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-02T18:42:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-kumar-lakshane-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijay Kumar Lakshane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2010"}]},{"@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\/166377","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=166377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}