Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14093 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 40 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Ramawati Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Raghave Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. (Order on C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025 - Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for applicant. 2. In view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing review application, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. Accordingly, delay in filing the review application is condoned. (Order on Review Application) 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application for review of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Writ A No. 676 of 2005 (Smt. Ramawati Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others) . 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri in 2006 and at the time of her appointment she has submitted certain documents including High School Certificate where her date of birth was indicated as 02.07.1989. On inquiry, it was found that the said certificate was fictitious and in fact her date of birth was 02.07.1984 and according to the correct date of birth, the petitioner was not even entitled to appear and apply for the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri inasmuch as she would have only 16 years of age on the said date. 4. Noticing the aforesaid facts, the respondents had cancelled her appointment by order dated 11.08.2022 which was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being Writ C No. 6413/2022. The writ court duly noticed the aforesaid facts and did not interfere with the order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner but only made observation that respondents 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 Karyakatri. 5. It is when the respondents did not appoint the petitioner in terms of direction, another writ petition was filed before this Court being Writ A No. 676 of 2025 where this Court considered all the facts and was also persuaded by the fact that petitioner had fictitiously and fraudulently manipulated her record at the time of seeking appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 6. Present review application has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions of the writ court in Writ C No. 6413 of 2022 and have stated that word "may" deserves to be interpreted as "shall" and the respondents are under a mandate to appoint the petitioner in terms of the said order. 7. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that when Hon'ble Single Judge has used the word "weightage" then despite the fact that there is no provision in the rules, it was incumbent upon the respondents to revise some machenism or rules to grant benefit of weightage. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and other, 2018 (13) SC 560. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, it is noticed that this Court while deciding the writ petition had considered all the aspects placed before it while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 21.01.2025. This Court had duly considered the fact that the petitioner had filed fictitious documents and this aspect of the matter stands concluded as even in the present writ petition there is no averment that the said certificates were valid and the petitioner had no involvement in preparation of the fictitious documents. 9. Any person who obtains appointment by filing false documents deserves to be dealt with strict manner being examplor for other persons seeking to obtain appointment by filing fictitious documents. This Court in the previous writ petition had left it open to the discretion of the respondents in case they so wish to appoint the petitioner looking at her length of services they had to appoint her. 10. This court has also dealt with this aspect in the order dated 21.01.2025 and this Court of the considered view that no such direction as sought by the petitioner in view of facts of the present case can be passed. Once this Court is of the considered view that no such direction can be passed, the question of grant of weightage and in what manner the same has to be granted does not even arise for consideration. The petitioner seems to be pressed grounds which were never pressed in either of writ petition or in previous writ petition regarding weightage and in any case no error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out by the petitioner necessitating interference of this Court on an application of review. This Court finds that the present application is nothing except to abuse of process of the Court and considering the aforesaid facts, the application for review is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench