VIROSHA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. BAL VIKAS EVAM PUSHTAHAR LKO. AND 4 OTHERS
WRIA/4113/2025 · 2025-04-17
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134342 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134342 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21807 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4113 of 2025 Petitioner :- Virosha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Kumar,Shreet Raj Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-
"it most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to consider the application of the petitioner on merit for the selection on the post of Anagawadi Karyakatri bearing registration no. AWW/3/30/770022 dated: 07.01.2025 and not to reject the application due to inadvertent mistake of mentioning the incorrect date of birth of the Petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills all the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri and is, therefore, entitled to be considered for selection to the said post. It is further submitted that during the verification process, the petitioner came to know that her candidature is likely to be rejected due to an inadvertent error, as she inadvertently entered her date of birth as 04.01.1991 instead of 01.04.1991. It is also submitted that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.04.1991, as reflected in the documents uploaded with the online application on the department’s portal. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that since the online application process has been closed and there is no provision to modify or rectify any error, the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner’s case strictly on merits by allowing her to correct
the date of birth. Learned Standing Counsel, opposing the petition, submits that in light of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, there is no provision for altering the information once it has been uploaded by the candidate. Perused the record. On due consideration of the facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner appears to have made an inadvertent and unintentional error while filling out the application form. Permitting her to correct the date of birth would not confer any undue advantage nor would it cause prejudice to any other candidate. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the mistake deserves to be rectified. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 is directed to allow the petitioner to correct her date of birth in the online portal. If such correction is not possible through the portal, an affidavit may be taken from the petitioner affirming the correct date of birth, and the date stated therein shall be considered correct. Thereafter, her candidature shall be considered along with other eligible candidates for the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, provided that the selection process has not already been concluded. With the observation made herein above, the petition is
disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench