{"id":254078,"date":"2010-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-12T12:14:28","modified_gmt":"2016-01-12T06:44:28","slug":"the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                      W.A. No. 299\/2010\n\n20.5.2010\n      Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA for State.\n\n      For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 4625\/2010, delay\n\nin filing this appeal is hereby condoned.\n\n      Heard on question of admission.\n\n      The writ appeal has been preferred as against the order\n\ndated 4.3.2010 passed by Single Bench of this Court in W.P.\n\nNo. 17054\/2003. The learned Single Judge by the impugned\n\norder has given the benefit in the light of decision rendered in\n\nW.P. No. 10214\/2005(s) and W.A. No. 4863\/2001 (State of M.P.\n\nAnd another Vs. Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada and another). Other\n\ndecisions have also been taken into consideration and relief has\n\nbeen given of counting the period of emergency appointment\n\nfor the purpose of conferring the benefit and the claim for grant\n\nof higher pay scale, selection grade or senior selection grade.\n\nHowever, it has been clarified that     the period would not be\n\ncounted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Asst.\n\nProfessor. The writ petition has been allowed in part.\n\n      The matter has been delved upon by a Division Bench of\n\nthis Court recently in W.A. No. 599\/2008 decided on 11.2.2010.\n\nThe Division Bench has made the following discussion :-\n\n      6.     No doubt about it that this Court has\n      consistently taken the view that such appointees are\n      entitled for the benefit of higher pay scale by\n      counting the services spent as emergency appointee.\n      Emergency appointments are made under Rule 12(5)\n      of the Rules of 1967 which reads thus :-\n \"12(5) :      Emergency Appointments :-       If\nCommission's panel of selected candidates is not\navailable, the posts may be filled by emergency\nappointments in the following manners:-\n\n          (a)      an advertisement shall be issued\n                   by Government;\n          (b)      Applications      for     emergency\n                   appointments shall be submitted in\n                   the form prescribed in Schedule V.\n          (c)      Applications received shall be\n                   registered and tabulated according\n                   to the following criteria -\n\n   Category Qualifications\n             .................\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">The names will be arranged in each sub-category<br \/>\naccording to the marks secured by the candidates at<br \/>\nthe MA\/M.Sc.\/M.Com.Examination:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">Provided if and when Public Service Commission<br \/>\npanel for these subjects is available, these teachers<br \/>\nwill be liable to be removed without notice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">7.     It is not in dispute that advertisement was<br \/>\nissued, selection committee was formed which has<br \/>\nconsidered the cases of the employees, they were<br \/>\nduly qualified for being appointed , their<br \/>\nappointments have continued till their regularization<br \/>\nand they were holding the similar pay scale in which<br \/>\nthey were regularized. Appointment was made in the<br \/>\npay scale not on fixed pay and there was no brake,<br \/>\nthey were not appointed as against any leave<br \/>\nvacancy, the appointment was not on purely adhoc<br \/>\nbasis    without    following   the   procedure,    the<br \/>\nappointment was made under the aforesaid rule<br \/>\n12(5).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">8. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts when<br \/>\nwe consider circular dated 12.2.92 issued by the<br \/>\nState Government which has been relied upon by the<br \/>\nTribunal while rendering decision in case of Seema<br \/>\nRaizada and Padma Shrivastava, a close reading of<br \/>\nthe circular dated 12.2.92 indicates that prior service<br \/>\nrendered has to be counted for the purpose of grant<br \/>\nof higher pay scale and selection grade pay scale on<br \/>\nfollowing conditions;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">       (i) that the post held must be equivalent and<br \/>\ncarrying the same pay scale;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        (ii) the qualifications of the post held should<br \/>\nnot be less than the prescribed qualification by the<br \/>\nUGC for the post of lecturer;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        (iii) at the time of appointment on the earlier<br \/>\npost of which service is to be counted an incumbent<br \/>\nmust possess the minimum qualification prescribed<br \/>\nby the UGC;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        (iv) appointment on the post must have been<br \/>\nmade by the prescribed selection procedure by the<br \/>\nState Government; and\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">       (v) the appointment should not be purely adhoc<br \/>\nor as against leave vacancy for less than one year.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">       When we apply the aforesaid five conditions in<br \/>\nthe instant case, one by one, it is not disputed that<br \/>\nappointment of the employees was on the same post<br \/>\nand in the same pay scale . Thus, the first condition<br \/>\nstands satisfied. When we come to second condition<br \/>\nas to the qualifications prescribed for the post, the<br \/>\npost held was the same post and the qualifications<br \/>\npossessed by incumbents were not less than that<br \/>\nprescribed by the UGC, it is not the case of State<br \/>\nthat qualifications prescribed in advertisement were<br \/>\nless. Thus, second condition also stands fulfilled.<br \/>\nWhen we come to IIIrd condition, the incumbent was<br \/>\nholding the minimum qualification prescribed by UGC<br \/>\nat the time of appointment on emergency basis, they<br \/>\nwere holding the qualifications has also not been<br \/>\ndisputed. When we come to fourth condition it is<br \/>\nadmitted that selection was made as prescribed<br \/>\nunder Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1967, since the<br \/>\nappointment was made under Rule 12(5), the<br \/>\naforesaid IVth condition also stands satisfied. When<br \/>\nwe examine fifth and last condition it is apparent that<br \/>\nappointment was made on emergency basis not on<br \/>\npurely adhoc basis, it was not against any leave<br \/>\nvacancy. For the purpose of appointment, prescribed<br \/>\nprocedure       under   Rule    12(5)  was    followed,<br \/>\nappointment was made under the rules. Rules provide<br \/>\nfor emergency appointment and prescribed the<br \/>\nprocedure for that which was followed and ultimately<br \/>\nthe services were regularized. The State Government<br \/>\nhas taken the decision vide circular dated 12.2.92 for<br \/>\ncounting of such services for the purpose of higher<br \/>\npay scale and for selection pay scale, the benefit of<br \/>\nwhich could not have been denied to the employees,<br \/>\nthus, relief has to be given on the basis of the<br \/>\naforesaid circular dated 12.2.92. Though it is not<br \/>\nnecessary to go into the DO of the MP PSC in view of<br \/>\ncircular dated 12.2.92, but MP PSC has clearly<br \/>\nmentioned in its DO dated 25.12.98 thus :-<br \/>\n&#8221; The Commission after seeking legal opinion on<br \/>\nclause 1(e), has decided to include service rendered<br \/>\n in adhoc capacity for counting of past service for<br \/>\nplacement in Senior Scale\/Selection Grade, provided<br \/>\nthat the following three conditions are fulfilled :-<br \/>\n&#8220;(a) The adhoc service was of more than one year<br \/>\nduration;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>         (b)     the incumbent was appointed on the<br \/>\n                 recommendation of duly constituted<br \/>\n                 Selection Committee, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>          (c)    The incumbent was selected to the<br \/>\n                 permanent post in continuation to the<br \/>\n                 adhoc service, without any brake.&#8221;<br \/>\n    The Commission has taken the above decision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_11\">       The aforesaid three requirements also stand<br \/>\nsatisfied in the instant case. The instant case stand on<br \/>\nbetter footing as the service rendered was not purely<br \/>\nadhoc, but it was under the rules as an emergency<br \/>\nappointee, even adhoc appointee in case has<br \/>\ncontinued for more than one year duration and was<br \/>\nselected by duly constituted selection committee and<br \/>\nwas later on selected to the permanent post in<br \/>\ncontinuation to the adhoc service without any brake,<br \/>\nhis services has to be counted for placement in Senior<br \/>\nScale\/Selection Grade as per aforesaid decision of<br \/>\nPSC. In the instant case, the case of employees is<br \/>\nmuch better. Thus, they could not have been denied<br \/>\nthe benefits of counting of their services rendered as<br \/>\nemergency appointee and their past services ought to<br \/>\nhave been counted for the placement in Senior Scale\/<br \/>\nSelection Grade, we find that decision rendered by<br \/>\nthe single Bench to be in accordance with law and we<br \/>\ndo not find any ground to differ from the view taken<br \/>\nby different Division Benches of this Court in several<br \/>\nmatters dismissing the writ appeals assailing the<br \/>\norder passed by the single Bench or the writ petition<br \/>\npreferred against the order passed by State<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">9. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned GA has relied upon<br \/>\nDivision Bench decision of this Court in Saroj<br \/>\nGoswami vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) in<br \/>\nwhich petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on a<br \/>\nfixed pay of Rs.700\/-. Division Bench of this Court<br \/>\nheld that fixed pay happened to be equivalent to the<br \/>\ninitial pay in a time scale,i.e.Rs.700\/-Rs.1600\/- does<br \/>\nnot mean that adhoc service was on a time scale. It<br \/>\nwas laid down by Division Bench of this Court that an<br \/>\nincumbent is neither entitled for benefit of seniority<br \/>\nnor pay scale.       In the instant case ratio of the<br \/>\naforesaid decision is not at all attracted as seniority<br \/>\nhas not been given in any of the order passed by the<br \/>\nsingle Bench, the benefit given is that of counting of<br \/>\nthe past services for the purpose of placement in the<br \/>\n       Senior Scale\/Selection Grade and the said benefit is<br \/>\n      available as per Government circular dt. 12.2.1992.<br \/>\n      In the aforesaid decision of Saroj Goswami vs. State<br \/>\n      of M.P. and others (supra) the appointment was<br \/>\n      made on adhoc basis which was not under the rules<br \/>\n      whereas the appointment in the instant cases was<br \/>\n      under the Rules of 1967 and ultimately incumbents<br \/>\n      have been regularized.       The appointment in the<br \/>\n      instant case was also on the pay scale, in the<br \/>\n      aforesaid decision appointment was on fixed pay,<br \/>\n      thus, decision is distinguishable. Even after following<br \/>\n      the aforesaid decision in its pith and substance, no<br \/>\n      dent is caused to the employees of the instant case as<br \/>\n      the relief is totally different, thus, ratio of said<br \/>\n      decision is not attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">      10. Resultantly, we find no merits in the writ appeals<br \/>\n      preferred by the State Government. The same are<br \/>\n      dismissed. They are bound to count the services<br \/>\n      rendered by the employees as emergency appointee<br \/>\n      for placement of Senior Scale\/Selection Grade. WP<br \/>\n      No. 24503\/03 stands allowed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">      Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned Government Advocate has<\/p>\n<p>relied upon the decision of State of Haryana Vs. Haryana<\/p>\n<p>Veterinary &amp; AHTS Association and another &#8211; (2000) 8<\/p>\n<p>SCC 4 in which the Haryana Govt. circular dated 2.6.1989 as<\/p>\n<p>modified    by   circular   dated    16.5.1990,     which    provides<\/p>\n<p>expression &#8216;regular service&#8217; came for consideration before their<\/p>\n<p>Lordships   service   rendered      on   adhoc    basis   dehors   the<\/p>\n<p>recruitment rules, was not includible in regular service. The<\/p>\n<p>same is not the position in the instant case. The directives<\/p>\n<p>issued by the PSC and Govt. circular which take care of the<\/p>\n<p>period which was spent by the petitioner as emergency<\/p>\n<p>appointment, even for the period of adhoc appointment, the<\/p>\n<p>State Government has issued the circular for counting the<\/p>\n<p>service for the purpose of higher pay scale, thus the decision is<br \/>\n distinguishable. In another decision which has been relied upon<\/p>\n<p>of State of Punjab and others Vs. Ishar Singh and others &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">(2002) 10 SCC 674, decision of        State of Haryana Vs.<\/p>\n<p>Haryana Veterinary &amp; AHTS Association and another<\/p>\n<p>(supra) has been referred to. The said decision is also<\/p>\n<p>distinguishable, as such we do not find any ground to take a<\/p>\n<p>different view.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">      Writ appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">No costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">      (Arun Mishra)                (S.C.Sinho)\n         Judge                      Judge\n\nPB\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010 W.A. No. 299\/2010 20.5.2010 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA for State. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 4625\/2010, delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on question of admission. The writ appeal has been preferred as against [&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-254078","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>The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-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=\"2010-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-12T06:44:28+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T06:44:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1454,\"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\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010\",\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T06:44:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 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":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-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":"2010-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-12T06:44:28+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T06:44:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010"},"wordCount":1454,"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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010","name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T06:44:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-malay-verma-on-20-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malay Verma on 20 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\/254078","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=254078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}