HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 31108 of 2014 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Govind Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dilip Kesarwani, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State respondents. None is present on behalf of the respondent no. 5. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.7.2014 whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner herein was rejected. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in the year 2011 a selection committee was constituted to select the Anganwadi Karyakartri for area Sadar, Maharajganj, District Maharajganj. Pursuant to this, the petitioner, Respondent Number 5, along with other applicants have applied. On the basis of the applications submitted by the applicants, a merit list was prepared and initially the name of the petitioner was shown at serial number 12 under APL category. The objections were raised by the petitioner to the said report. Inquiry was later conducted and the petitioner was shown under the BPL category and consequently she was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakartri on 6-7-2011. Subsequently, on complaint submitted by respondent no. 5 that the petitioner does not belong to BPL category as claimed by her. A fresh inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 24.7.2011 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner belong to the APL category. On the basis of the said report, vide order dated 13.4.2011, the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakartri was cancelled and in her place, respondent no. 5 was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Karyakartri. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Kaushik, Gaurav Sharan Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Parmeshwar Yadav Yashodhara Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) herein has approached this court by filing the writ petition no. 49487 of 2012, Yashodhara Devi versus State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 1.10.2012 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the claim of the petitioner afresh. 4. In such view of the matter, the respondents have conducted a fresh inquiry through SDM concerned and a detailed report was submitted on 8.2.2014. In the said report, it has been observed that the financial status of the respondent no. 5 is better as comparative to the financial status of respondent no. 5. In the said report, the SDM has also verified the income certificates issued to the petitioner on 4.4.2011 and to the respondent no. 5 on 28.3.2011, wherein the income of the petitioner was shown as Rs. 21,600 per annum whereas the income of the respondent no. 5 was noted to be Rs.18,000 per annum and both the income certificates have been found to be true. In such circumstances, the District Magistrate has observed that the respondent no. 5, on the basis of the said income certificate has poor financial condition and was below poverty line, belonging to the Scheduled Caste candidate. Therefore, her appointment has been affirmed and the representation of the petitioner herein has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the fresh inquiry conducted by the S.D.M. on the basis of which the District Magistrate has passed the order impugned in this writ petition. Otherwise also from perusal of the record, it is apparent that in the instant matter a detailed inquiry has been conducted by the S.D.M. and on the basis of the inquiry report dated 8.2.2014 the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order after considering the entire materials available on record. 5. In view of the above, this Court does not find illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026 o.k. WRIA No. 31108 of 2014 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad