Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 134907 (ALL)

MADHU BALA BHARTI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. BAAL VIKAS EVAM PUSHTAHAAR GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/4245/2025 · 2025-05-16

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29029 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4245 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madhu Bala Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Baal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Narain Mishra,Vimal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of anganwadi karyakatri in village Ramnagara in Block Gaisadi on its merits, considering the fact that the income certificate submitted by the respondent no.5 had been found to be fake;" Learned standing counsel, on the basis of written instructions which are taken on record, has opposed the petition and has submitted that pleadings in the petition as well as prayer are misconceived. He submits that the inquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Tulsipur in which the allegation made in the complaint against the private respondent that her income certificate has not been issued properly has been found false in fact the income certificate has been rightly issued to the private respondent and she is a BPL category candidate. He prays that petition may be dismissed. Perused the record. The instructions provided by learned standing counsel are silent regarding the consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post in question. The instructions also do not depict as to what is the respective merit of both the candidates. In view of above, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.2 i.e. District Program Officer (Baal Vikas)/Secretary within a period of two weeks' from today who shall take a decision within a further period of four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench