Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20806 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3580 of 2025 Petitioner :- Neetu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar Vibhag U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Madhavan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. The petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit has filed an application for amendment in prayer clause. 4. On due consideration to the fact that proposed amendment is consequential in nature and cause of action occurred to the petitioner after filing of the petition, the amendment application is allowed. 5. The instructions provided by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions has submitted that the petitioner could not be selected on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti as she falls under the APL category and there was incumbent namely, Pinki Yadav available from the BLP category who according to the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 has been given priority and that is why the petitioner could not be selected and Pinki Yadav has been selected as Anganwadi Karyakarti. 7. He has further submitted that the private respondent Pinki yadav has been selected as Anganwadi Karyakarti as she has secured highest merit amongst the BPL candidates. Applicant's income certificate was issued on 09.08.2023 which has been issued more than six months before the date of advertisement which is 26.09.2023 and thus, the applicant has been treated as APL category candidate and accordingly in view of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, the priority has been given to the lady candidate belonging to BPL category. 8. Perused the record. 9. As per the impugned order dated 21.03.2023, the income certificate of the petitioner has been issued more than six months prior to the date of advertisement and as such in view of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 she has been treated as APL category candidate. Petitioner has also prayed in prayer no.1 for striking down the condition No.3(cha)(iii) provided in Government Order dated 21.03.2023, Annexure no.1 however, the law in this regard is settled. The petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the terms of the advertisement and selection once he participates in the selection process in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Anupal Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [(2020) 2 SCC 173]. The petitioner has also sought a writ of Mandamus to consider and appoint her on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also considering the fact that petitioner could not produce the required income certificate as per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 which has been issued within six months from the date of advertisement and therefore, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. There is no illegality in the order impugned, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench