Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22172 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3958 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anupam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Child Development And Nutrition Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,Shivangi Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to respondent Nos.7 and 8 are dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing thereby impugned selection of OP No-7 & 8 on the post of Aganwadi Karyakatri relating to AWW Centre Gaddipur and Daranagar, Gram Sabha Daranagar, Block- Khairabad, District- Sitapur, in the interest of justice. The true copy of the list of selected candidates is annexed as Annexure No-1. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding thereby the concerned respondent to make fair selection on the post of Aganwadi Karyakatri in AWW Centre Daranagar, Gaddipur and Madhawpur, Gram Sabha- Daranagar, Block-Khairabad, District-Sitapurexpeditiously as possible, in the interest of justice." 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of written instructions, has submitted that merit list for the post in question has been prepared in view of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023. According to the prescribed procedure, respondent No.7-Rinku Shukla has secured 13.91% whereas Anupam, the petitioner has secured 6.14 % in merit and Rinku Shukla has been selected being higher in merit. One Neeshu Yadav, respondent No.8, has been selected on Daranagar Centre, the seat is unreserved category and anyone can apply for the said post wherein Neeshu Yadav has secured 19.58 % whereas the petitioner has secured only 6.14%. Thus, on both the centres of Village Daranagar because of lower merit, the petitioner cannot be selected. 5. He further submits that on both seats, the selected candidates have appointed and submitted joining on the aforesaid centres. 6. In view of above instructions, it is clear that respondent No.7-Rinku Shukla and respondent No.8-Neeshu Yadav have outperformed by the petitioner and have also joined on their respective posts, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.7 is not a resident of village area and is residing in urban area therefore, her domicile certificate of rural area could not have been issued is concerned, learned Standing Counsel submits that in the written instructions although the allegation of the petitioner has been found baseless and respondent No.7 has been found to be a resident of village area as per the documents provided by her however, in view of complaint of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, Sitapur has been directed to be inquired about the residence and income of respondent No.7-Smt. Rinku Shukla thus, considering this statement no orders are required to be passed by this Court. 8. It is expected that the inquiry so proposed may be conducted expeditiously. 9. The liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case, during course of inquiry, the complaint of the petitioner is found substantiated. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench