Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26772 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5073 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Nisha Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Child Development Service And Nutrition U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shesh Mani Shukla,Sarvesh Kumar 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. Notice to respondent no. 6 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had previously filed Writ Petition No. 3257 of 2025, titled Sarita Kumari and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, which was disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to decide the petitioners’ representations. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that during the intervening period, a select list has been prepared. Respondent no. 6, who has been selected, was issued an income certificate on 05.04.2024, whereas the advertisement was published on 21.10.2024. As per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, the income certificate is required to be issued within six months prior to the date of the advertisement. In this case, the certificate is beyond the prescribed period of six months. Despite this, respondent no. 6 was allegedly selected with malafide intent. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner erroneously filled the application form. While submitting the form online, the petitioner selected the scheduled tribe category. It is submitted that the Anganwari Centre at Para Ganapur, Gram Sabha Para Bajar, was reserved for candidates belonging to the scheduled caste category and not for the scheduled tribe. Due to this error on the part of the petitioner during online submission, her application was not considered. The instructions provided by the learned Additional CSC are taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed this contention and alleged manipulation made by the authorities. These are the disputed questions of fact. Being a Writ Court, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate such factual disputes. Accordingly, the prayer is declined. However, respondent no. 3 is directed to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition and in case the allegations are found substantiated, appropriate action shall be taken within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified cop of the order. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench