NEELAM DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF BAL VIKAS SEWA EVAM PUSHTAHAR LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIA/5948/2025 · 2025-07-09
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 141681 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 141681 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38955 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5948 of 2025 Petitioner :- Neelam Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Singhaniya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 5 and 7. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.6 stands dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed seeking quashing of appointment order of opposite party No.6 after summoning the same. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment on the post of Aganbari Worker in Block Malihabad, District Lucknow sought of advertisement dated 13th March, 2024 has also been sought.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that opposite party No.6 has been granted such appointment despite of fact that she does not feature in the below poverty line category and was in fact in the above poverty line category but despite the same she has been selected ignoring rules/preference to be given to those candidates who are under below poverty line category.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 22nd May, 2025, which are taken on record and as per which, the opposite party No.6 obtained 10.41 merit marks whereas petitioner has obtained 5.32 marks. There are at least 10 persons indicated in merit list between opposite party No.6 and the petitioner who have obtained marks ranging from 8.22 till 5.76 and have been placed above the petitioner.
5. It is also evident that no candidate who may have been under below poverty line category has filed any claim against selection of opposite party No. 6. In such circumstances, this Court does not find the claim of petitioner for appointment to be justified.
6. Considering aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench