Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22493 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4283 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kumari Neetu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Child Development And Nutrition Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanka Yadav,Pradeep Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. Notice to respondent no. 6 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. 3. Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned select list dated 24/03/2025 (Annexure No. 1) relating to Block Hargaon, Village Peetpur, Sitapur, Sitapur, Aganbadi Center No Peetpur-I,, Aganbadi Center Code 9154060106 reserved for schedule cast community and physically handicapped, District Sitapur, issued by the O.P No.4 and 5 i.e. District Programme Officer, Sitapur after the approval of O.P No. 3 i.e District Magistrate Sitapur as the same being illegal unjust improper and bad in the eyes of law. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commariding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned select list dated 21/03/2025 (Annexure No. 1) relating to Block Hargaon, Village Peetpur, Sitapur, Sitapur, Aganbadi Center No. Peetpur-I,, Aganbadi Center Code 9154060106 reserved for schedule cast community and physically handicapped, District Sitapur, issued by the O.P No. 4 and 5 i.e. District Programme Officer, Sitapur after the approval of O.P No. 3 i.e District Magistrate Sitapur as the same being illegal unjust improper and bad in the eyes of law. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the Petitioners." 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is physically handicapped. He further submits that the petitioner has secured higher marks in the village and therefore she ought to have been selected. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions, which are taken on record submits that in Vikas Khand / Child Development Project Hargaoan, Sitapur, as per the Government Order, out of 62 posts of Anganwadi workers, two posts were reserved under the disabled category. Against these two reserved posts, three physically handicapped candidates applied for the Anganwadi Centre at Peetpur 1st, namely: Ms. Rubina Bano, Ms. Fauzia Bano, and Ms. Neetu (the petitioner). The petitioner applied under the disabled category. The disability percentage of Ms. Rubina Bano is 70%, Ms. Fauzia Bano is 60%, and the petitioner has a disability of 40%. Therefore, she could not be selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker as she ranked third in terms of disability percentage. 6. As far as merit is concerned, three candidates were shortlisted for the Anganwadi Centre, Peetpur 1st. Among them, Ms. Rubina Bano secured 10.68 marks in merit, whereas the petitioner secured 6.34 marks, and thus ranked third. Therefore, the petitioner was outperformed by the selected candidates, and accordingly, one Saraswati Rajwanshi was selected. 7. In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner has secured lower merit marks than the selected candidate, Saraswati Rajwanshi. Regarding the petitioner's claim that she should be selected under the handicapped quota, it is clarified that only two posts were reserved under that category, and the selected candidates Rubina Bano and Fauzia Bano have higher disability percentages (70% and 60%, respectively) than the petitioner (40%). Therefore, the petitioner has rightly been not selected. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench