Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21004 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3708 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kalpana Kumari Respondent :- Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa And Pushtahar Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhilasha Pandey,Shradha Mishra 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. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 has passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she does not want to press prayer no. 1 made in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed so far as prayer no. 1 is concerned. So far as other prayers are concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, she has applied for the post of Aganbadi Karyakarti in her village. inadvertently, while uploading her graduation marks during the online application process, the petitioner submitted the marks through a computer operator at Jansewa Kendra, Ranjanji Amethi, who mistakenly entered 3162 marks instead of 3135 marks out of 3800 marks. It is further submitted that since there is no edit option available, no rectification could be made and the original marksheet of graduation was uploaded online simultaneously. It is next submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no intention to suppress any information or mislead the authorities, which is evident from the fact that while the inadvertently incorrect marks were entered online, the original marksheet was also submitted online by the petitioner. The physical verification of the paper was conducted on 25.2.2025. The difference due to the inadvertent error is only 0.07 percent, which does not provide any undue advantage to the petitioner. It is further submitted that except the petitioner, there is no other candidate from the said village. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three days? time to seek written instructions in the matter. List on 15.4.2025 as fresh." 3. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions has submitted that the feeded marks of the petitioner on the portal are 3162 whereas according to her original certificates these are 3135. In the physical verification, due to this difference and also due to fact that the income certificate of the petitioner has been issued beyond six months from the date of the advertisement, the petitioner cannot be selected for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti. 4. Perused the record. 5. A perusal of para 8 of the petition shows that the advertisement was issued on 26.09.2024. Admittedly, the income certificate of the petitioner was issued by the competent authority on 14.10.2023 and 20.01.2025 which is evident from page Nos.38 and 39 thus, the income certificate of the petitioner for the purpose of her selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti is not in conformity with the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the opposite parties not to select the petitioner on these two grounds cannot be faulted with. 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