Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3650 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 676 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Ramawati Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Raghave Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakartri on 3.6.2006. At the time of her recruitment she had submitted her High School certificate wherein date of birth according to the petitioner was 2.7.1989 according to which she was above the minimum age required for the said post. On inquiry having been made on the basis of certain complaints the High School certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of her recruitment was found to be manipulated and fictitious and the age of the petitioner instead was 2.7.1984. Considering the fact that her correct date of birth was 2.7.1984 the petitioner ought not to have been found eligible for being appointed as Anganwadi Karyakartri on 3.6.2006 as she was only 16 years' six months' of age on the said date. It is on the aforesaid facts having been brought to knowledge of the competent authority that the District Programme Officer, Bahraich by means of order dated 11.8.2022 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of her appointment, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing Writ C No.6413 of 2022 which was dismissed vide this Court vide order dated 10.4.2023 after recording the fact that the benefit cannot be granted to such a candidate who has filed forged/manipulated date of birth certificate for obtaining her employment. Considering that the petitioner had worked for 16 years, it was provided that the opposite parties "may" engage the petitioner afresh if there is some vacancy and due weightage is to be given to her looking at her experience for working on the post of Anganwadi Karyakartri. 4. From a perusal of the aforesaid direction, it is clear that it was an observation of this Court considering that the petitioner had worked for 16 years and subject to aforesaid order there was no other direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Karyakartri. In case there was some vacancy on the said post and it was left open to the discretion of the opposite parties to take decision whether to appoint the petitioner or not and, therefore, it was stated that the opposite parties may engage and if any discretion has to be exercised in favour of the petitioner then certainly weightage may be given to her. Needles to say that whenever such orders are passed the respondents are directed to consider the claim of such person only in accordance with law. 5. In the present case, it has been submitted that the respondents have advertised the post of Anganwadi Karyakartri and the petitioner falls in the zone of eligible candidates as she has yet to complete 35 years of age and claiming herself to be eligible she had applied for the said post. It has further been stated that recruitment process is underway and has not yet concluded till date. It is during the said circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the advertisement dated 18.12.2024 online on the basis of which the petitioner has applied online and also to grant weightage for each year of experience on the post in question i.e. Anganwadi Karyakartri. He submits that the respondents are bound to give effect to the judgment of this Court dated 10.4.2023 and, therefore, weightage has to be given to the petitioner during the said selection. 6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that there is no provision for weightage to be given either under the Government Order or under the Rules governing the said appointment. He submits that the Court had left it open to the discretion of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for engagement of the petitioner and also in case it was so then due weightage could have been given to her. He submits that the petitioner cannot be treated to be a special case for being granted any benefit in the said recruitment considering the fact that even the rules issued by the respondents do not provide for grant of weightage in favour of any person on the basis of her experience. There is no government order or any rules in this regard by which weightage for working experience on the post of Anganwadi Karyakartri can be given and submits that in case the petitioner is granted any weightage it would be arbitrary exercise of the powers on behalf of the respondents and such an action would be questioned in any court of law and even otherwise there is no provision under the rules to grant benefit as sought by the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The claim of the petitioner for being granted weightage in the present recruitment is only on account of the order of this Court dated 10.4.2023 passed in writ C No.6413 of 2022. Considering the conduct of the petitioner that she had filed forged and manipulated date of birth of her High School certificate and had put forth her age to be 2.7.1989 instead of 7.2.1984 and on account of false declaration she was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakartri. There is no doubt that her initial appointment on the said post was illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, the same was cancelled and this Court while judicially reviewing the aforesaid decision on 10.4.2023 came to the conclusion that no interference can be granted in favour of the petitioner considering the fact that she has manipulated and forged her date of birth certificate for obtaining employment. It was merely an observation of this Court leaving it open to the discretion to the respondents if they so choose they will provide weightage to grant employment to the petitioner considering her date of birth accordingly no right has accrued to the petitioner on the basis of the observations made by this Court after dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The petitioner has applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.12.2024. In case, she is found suitable she may be considered for employment but no further direction for granting any weightage contrary to any provision can be granted by this Court. 10. Subject to aforesaid observations, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner, which is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench