{"id":19770,"date":"2010-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-09T15:29:00","modified_gmt":"2018-10-09T09:59:00","slug":"virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>08.07.2010.\n      Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n      Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondent<\/pre>\n<p>Nos. 1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Petitioner was a candidate, who had participated in the<br \/>\nprocess of selection for appointment to the post of constable in the<br \/>\nGovernment Reserve Police, which was conducted from 4.7.2003<br \/>\nto 30.7.2003. However, as the entire selection was cancelled and<br \/>\nthe petitioner was also found ineligible for appointment on the basis<br \/>\nof certain enquiry conducted in the matter and report submitted<br \/>\nvide Annexure P\/10, petitioner has filed this writ petition<br \/>\nchallenging the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, points<br \/>\nout that initially on the basis of the enquiry report &#8211; Annexure P\/10,<br \/>\nthe entire selection was cancelled. The cancellation of the entire<br \/>\nselection resulted in filing of four writ petitions before this Court.<br \/>\nThe Writ Petition Nos: 4692\/2005, 2591\/05, 13451\/05(s) and<br \/>\n3690\/05, were decided by a common order-dated 11.3.2008 &#8211;<br \/>\nAnnexure P\/12. It was found by a Bench of this Court that it was<br \/>\nonly in the case of 14 persons that there was illegality in the process<br \/>\nof selection. In the case of other selected candidates there was no<br \/>\nillegality and, therefore, the Bench of this Court found that the<br \/>\ncancellation of the entire selection is illegal and direction was given<br \/>\nto appoint such persons against whom there was no irregularity. It<br \/>\nis common ground that writ appeals were filed and finally on the<br \/>\nbasis of scrutiny of records in case of such candidates, where there<br \/>\nwere no illegality, appointments have been granted. However,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>petitioner is one of the persons amongst the 14, in whose cases<br \/>\nirregularities were found and appointment was not granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, points<br \/>\nout that the irregularity committed in the case of the petitioner<br \/>\nrelates to Charge No.9, as indicated in the report &#8211; Annexure P\/10,<br \/>\nand by taking me through the said charge, he points out that<br \/>\ninitially when the measurements of the petitioner were taken, his<br \/>\nheight was found to be 165 cms and his chest measurement was 80-<br \/>\n85 cms. He was granted relaxation as far as height is concerned, but<br \/>\nas no relaxation was granted with regard to chest measurement, he<br \/>\nwas found ineligible for appointment. In the meanwhile, it is found<br \/>\nthat petitioner&#8217;s mother produced certain documents dated<br \/>\n10.9.2003 and he was granted relaxation in chest measurement also,<br \/>\nbut finding such relaxation to be not in accordance with law, his<br \/>\nselection was cancelled on the ground that it was illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, further points<br \/>\nout that in the report itself the Inspector General has directed for<br \/>\ntaking fresh chest measurement of the petitioner and thereafter<br \/>\nconsider his case for relaxation. It is argued that without following<br \/>\nthe aforesaid procedure, rejection of petitioner&#8217;s candidature is<br \/>\nillegal. On the aforesaid ground contending that there is no material<br \/>\nirregularity in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner could<br \/>\ncome to know about these facts only when the enquiry report was<br \/>\nsubmitted and the facts came to his knowledge after decision of<br \/>\nW.P.No.4692\/2005, on 11.3.2008 and after representation he has<br \/>\nfiled this writ petition, Shri Pandey seeks for interference into the<br \/>\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the State, has filed<br \/>\nreply and it is pointed out that as petitioner is one of the 14<br \/>\ncandidates, in whose case irregularity was found, no relief can be<br \/>\ngranted to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<br \/>\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From the records it is clear that in the case of 14 candidates,<br \/>\nirregularities were found and, therefore, this Court in the earlier<br \/>\nround of litigation had directed for taking action in the case of other<br \/>\ncandidates leaving aside the 14 candidates. Petitioner is one of the<br \/>\n14 candidates, in whose case the irregularity is committed.<br \/>\nHowever, the cause of irregularity and the effect of the same vis-\u00e0-<br \/>\nvis the selection of the person concerned is not adjudicated by this<br \/>\nCourt and it is for the first time that petitioner, one of the 14<br \/>\ncandidates, is challenging the finding of irregularity and the action<br \/>\ntaken on the basis of the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>      That being so, in the case of the petitioner, this Court is now<br \/>\nrequired to consider as to what was the irregularity that came to the<br \/>\nknowledge of the authority by virtue of the enquiry report &#8211;<br \/>\nAnnexure P\/10 and if the same is of grave nature then no relief can<br \/>\nbe granted to the petitioner. In view of the above, I propose to<br \/>\nexamine the enquiry report, the illegality that came to the notice in<br \/>\nthe case of the petitioner and the action to be taken on the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Charge No.9, in the enquiry report &#8211; Annexure P\/10, pertains<br \/>\nto the petitioner. The said charge and the findings are in two<br \/>\nparagraphs. The first part i.e&#8230; the first paragraph deals with the<br \/>\nmeasurement taken and it is indicated in this part that initially when<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>petitioner&#8217;s physical measurement were taken, it was found that his<br \/>\nheight is 165 cms and his chest measurement is 80-85 cms. It has<br \/>\nbeen observed in the report that vide circular dated 8.8.2003,<br \/>\ncertain relaxation were granted to candidates belonging to SC and<br \/>\nST community and in the case of the petitioner, the competent<br \/>\nauthority has found him entitled for relaxation in the height.<br \/>\nHowever, no relaxation in the chest measurement is granted and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the enquiry report indicates that the Inspector General of<br \/>\nPolice has recommended for taking the chest measurement again<br \/>\nand consider if relaxation in this regard can be granted to the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is common ground that in pursuance to this direction of the<br \/>\nInspector General of Police, no action was taken, but subsequently<br \/>\nbecause petitioner&#8217;s mother and the petitioner himself produced<br \/>\nsome documents showing grant of relaxation to the petitioner and<br \/>\nfinding that these documents have come not through the Selection<br \/>\nCommittee and they were not produced before the Committee,<br \/>\ndoubting the veracity of the relaxation, petitioner&#8217;s case is rejected.<br \/>\nThis finding is recorded in second paragraph of the enquiry report &#8211;<br \/>\nAnnexure P\/10.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is, therefore, clear the Inspector General of Police had<br \/>\ndirected for taking measurement of the petitioner again and<br \/>\nconsider his case for relaxation and according to the petitioner<br \/>\nrelaxation was granted, but the enquiry report was given adverse to<br \/>\nthe petitioner and this relaxation was rejected only because the<br \/>\nrelaxation and the papers were not routed through or placed before<br \/>\nthe Selection Committee, but is placed directly before the authority.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Be that as it may, at this stage even if the second part of the finding<br \/>\nof the enquiry officer with regard to submission of relaxation<br \/>\nimproperly is ignored, petitioner is entitled to consideration of his<br \/>\ncase for relaxation after his chest measurement is taken and action<br \/>\ntaken as per the directions of the Inspector General of Police. To<br \/>\nthat effect, petitioner is entitled to benefit as there is no other grave<br \/>\nor serious irregularity pointed out in the case of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the irregularity<br \/>\nin the selection of the petitioner is not so grave or serious that his<br \/>\ncandidature should be thrown out. In the light of the order passed<br \/>\nby the Inspector General of Police (Railway), Bhopal respondents<br \/>\nshould take the chest measurement of the petitioner again and after<br \/>\nevaluating his claim for grant of relaxation, if permissible as per<br \/>\nrules, take a fresh decision in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid this petition is<br \/>\nallowed in part and the following directions are given:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      (1)    On the petitioner&#8217;s filing a certified copy of this order,<br \/>\n             the appointing authority i.e.. the Superintendent of<br \/>\n             Police &#8211; respondent No.5, shall undertake the exercise<br \/>\n             of physical verification of petitioner&#8217;s height and chest<br \/>\n             and if found eligible, take action for appointment of<br \/>\n             the   petitioner.   In   case    the   height   and chest<br \/>\n             measurement fall below the prescribed standard or<br \/>\n             criteria, the Superintendent of Police concerned shall<br \/>\n             examine the question of granting relaxation, decide it<br \/>\n             in accordance to the provisions of the policies and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               circulars of the State Government, and decide the<br \/>\n               question as to whether appointment can be granted to<br \/>\n               the petitioner or not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>        (2)    The exercise as indicated hereinabove be undertaken<br \/>\n               and a final decision communicated to the petitioner<br \/>\n               within a period of two months from the date of receipt<br \/>\n               of certified copy of this order<\/p>\n<p>        With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed in part and<br \/>\ndisposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Certified copy as per rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          (RAJENDRA MENON)<br \/>\n                                               JUDGE<br \/>\nAks\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010 08.07.2010. Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Petitioner was a candidate, who had participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post [&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-19770","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>Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 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\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-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=\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-09T09:59:00+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-09T09:59:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1422,\"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\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-09T09:59:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 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":"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 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\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-09T09:59:00+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-09T09:59:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010"},"wordCount":1422,"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\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010","name":"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-09T09:59:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virendra-kuamr-kaithal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Virendra Kuamr Kaithal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 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\/19770","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=19770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19770\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}