Roobi Devi v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY., BAL VIKAS SEWA EVAM PUSHTAHAR VIBHAG, LUCKNOW AND 5 OTHERS
WRIA/3564/2025 · 2025-04-15
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131949 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131949 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20977 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3564 of 2025 Petitioner :- Roobi Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Vibhag, Lucknow And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar,Chandra Prakash,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi 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. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"i.
यह कक ममनननय नयमयमलय सस कनवसदन हह कक परममदसश लसख जमरन करकस
कवपकन सस० 2, 3, 4,
कस समक कदए गयस कशकमयतन पमररनम-
पत कनसतमरण
ककयस जमनस समबनधन आदसश कनदरश पमररत करनस कक कक पम कक जमयस। ii.
परममदसश पकक कत कम ककई आदसश कनदरश पमररत करनस कक अननकपम यमकचत
हह कक बमद वयय यम ककतपपकतर यमचन कस पक मम अनय ककई आदसश कनदरश
ममनननय नयमयमलय समनकचत समझस यमचन कस पक मम पमररत करनस कक अननकस पम
कक जमयस।"
3. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions has submitted that the petitioner has mentioned different marks in his high school while uploading the application form however, the annexed high school mark sheet is different thus, she has tried to mislead the department and accordingly her claim for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti was not found fit thus, she has not been selected.
4. The instructions provided are taken on record.
5. It is evident from perusal of the instructions that the income certificate given by the petitioner is of 13.07.2021 which has been issued more than six months prior to the date of the advertisement thus, the same is contrary to the relevant Government Order dated 21.03.2023 therefore, her candidature cannot be considered.
6. Perused the record.
7. On due consideration to the reasons assigned in the instructions provided by the learned Standing Counsel, it is evident that petitioner's income certificate was not in conformity with the order dated 21.03.2023 so also the fact that there is variance in the details of marks obtained in High School and thus, on these two grounds she has not been selected. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench