Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27923 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4867 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madhuri Goswami Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Avam Pushtahar Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Kewal Tripathi Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondent no. 1 to 5 as well as Shri Ram Kewal Tripathi, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 6 is taken on record. The petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite party No. 4 and 5 to take decision over the claim of the petitioner for service on the post of Aganwari Karyakatri, after hearing to the petitioner in the interest of justice. (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite party No. 4 and 5 to detersing and prepared the selection list in terms of the Government order dated 21.03.2023 and Judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 and passed the application appropriate on order 19.04.2025 on contain the as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition in the interest of justice." Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, has submitted that both the petitioner and the selected candidate fall under the BPL (Below Poverty Line) category. According to the domicile certificate submitted by the selected candidate, she is a resident of Village Jhauhana. As she has secured higher marks under the BPL category, the selected candidate has been given priority over the petitioner on merit. Perused the record. As regards the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner—that respondent no. 6 is not a resident of Village Jhauhana, based on an application allegedly filed by her on the Chief Minister’s Portal—the same has been refuted by learned counsel representing respondent no. 6. Such an application cannot be considered valid evidence to disqualify the candidature of respondent no. 6, especially when the domicile certificate issued in her favour has not been challenged by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has not questioned the selection of respondent no. 6. In view of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 6, and the fact that she has obtained higher marks than the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025/R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench