Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37422 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7063 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sarita Devi Verma @ Sarita Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chhote Lal Yadav,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State No.1 to 5 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 05.05.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment keeping in view the observations made in Writ A No.10999 of 2024 In Re Sarita Devi Verma @ Sarita Verma vs State of U.P. & Ors, decided on 20.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the petition, has been rejected. 4. As the facts of the case have already been discussed in detail in the judgment in the case of Sarita Devi Verma (supra), as such the judgment dated 20.01.2025 is being reproduced hereunder:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. With the consent of the parties the matter is being decided finally. 3. There is consensus at bar that the facts of the case have already been noted in detail by this Court in the order dated 22.11.2022. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 22.11.2022 is reproduced below: "Heard Sri C.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Uday Veer Singh,learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Singh,learned counsel for the respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the notification dated 07.06.2024, the petitioner had applied for the post of Panchayat Sahayak/Accountant cum Data entry operator. However, since Secretary,Gram Panchayat who had to receive the application was not available, therefore on his instruction,the application was received on 25.06.2024 by Gram Pradhan. The Secretary,Gram Panchayat came and gave receipt on 06.07.2024. The Gram Pradhan and Secretary have admitted it in their statements. The Gram Panchayat selected the name of the petitioner for the post. However, on some complaint, a committee was constituted and enquiry was made. The enquiry report has been submitted by the B.D.O. on 30.08.2024 recommending for selection of the petitioner but till date no decision has been taken by the competent authority i.e. respondent no.3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid. However, he submits that he has no instructions as to whether any decision has been taken on the report dated 30.08.2024 contained in Annexure No.9 to the writ petition or not. He prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions as to why decision has not been taken till date and who is responsible for it. As prayed, list on 29.11.2024 as fresh." 4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order as well as arguments as raised by the learned counsel for contesting parties and perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Panchayat Sahayat/ Accountant-cum-Data Operator in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.06.2024, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The last date fixed for receipt of the applications was 30.06.2024. The petitioner claims to have submitted her application for the post of Panchayat Sahayak on 25.06.2024 but the receipt thereof has been given on 06.07.2024 with the result that the case of the petitioner for appointment on the said post was not processed. 5. This Court had required to learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions. 6. Today, leaned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions sent by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki dated 27.12.2024 states that as the last date fixed for receipt of the applications was 30.06.2024 and the petitioner had submitted her application on 06.07.2024, consequently, the case of the petitioner has not been processed. 7. The aforesaid instructions sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki are found to be patently fallacious inasmuch as in terms of the advertisement dated 07.06.2024 the last date fixed for receipt of the application was 30.06.2024. A perusal of the statement given by the Gram Pradhan, a copy of which is annexure-6 to the writ petition, would indicate that the application of the petitioner was submitted on 25.06.2024 before the Gram Pradhan. The Gram Pradhan had duly informed the Gram Vikas Adhikari Sri Vinod Kumar Gautam on 26.06.2024 of the application having been received to which Sri Vinod Kumar responded that the Gram Pradhan should keep the application of the petitioner in her custody and he would be issuing a receipt thereof. It is only when Sri Vinod Kumar Gautam i.e. the Gram Vikas Adhikari reached on 06.07.2024 that the receipt has been issued. 8. Statement of the Gram Pradhan is duly supported by the statement of the Gram Vikas Adhikari Sri Vinod Kumar Gautam, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure- 7 to the writ petition which infact has been considered by the Committee in its report dated 30.08.2024 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure -9 to the writ petition, wherein it has been indicated that the selection of the petitioner on the post is in accordance with rules. 9. Once the petitioner has submitted her application within time fixed as per the advertisement and it is the authorities who are responsible for giving the receipt thereof and on account of whose action the receipt has been issued belatedly although the application in turn had been received within time consequently, there was no occasion for non consideration of the case of the petitioner on the ground of her application having been received beyond the time fixed for receipt of application i.e. beyond 30.6.2024. 10. 10. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority, which is said to be a Committee headed by the District Magistrate, to look into the matter keeping in view the observation made above and a final decision shall be taken with regard to the appointment of the petitioner in accordance with rules and the relevant government orders. 11. Let such a decision may be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 5. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it emerges that the applications for the post of Panchayat Assistant/Accountant cum Data Entry Operator in pursuance of the advertisement dated 07.06.2024, for which the petitioner was an aspirant, were to be submitted by 30.06.2024 which was the last date. The petitioner had submitted an application on 25.06.2024 but the receipt thereof was given on 06.07.2024 with the result that the case of the petitioner for appointment could not be processed. 6. From the instructions as were given by the learned Standing Counsel, it emerged that there was a statement of the Gram Pradhan which indicated that the application of the petitioner was submitted on 25.06.2024 i.e. prior to the last date fixed for receipt of the applications but the same was submitted before the Gram Pradhan. The Gram Pradhan had duly informed the Gram Vikas Adhikari who is the competent authority to receive such applications namely Shri Vinod Kumar Gautam on 26.06.2024 of the application having been received to which Shri Vinod Kumar Gautam responded that the Gram Pradhan should keep the application of the petitioner in her custody and he would be issuing a receipt thereof subsequently. However, when Shri Vinod Kumar Gautam i.e. the Gram Vikas Adhikari reached on 06.07.2024, a receipt has been issued on the said date which resulted in the application of the petitioner not being processed. 7. Considering the aforesaid, the writ court vide the judgment dated 25.01.2025 had specifically directed the competent authority which was said to be a Committee headed by the District Magistrate to look into the matter keeping in view the observations made in the order dated 20.01.2025 and take a final decision in regard to the appointment of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and relevant government orders. 8. In pursuance thereof, claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order impugned dated 05.05.2024. 9. Perusal of the said order would indicate that the same plea which has already been considered threadbare by the writ court in its final judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 has been reiterated i.e. the application of the petitioner has been received subsequent to the last date fixed for receiving the applications i.e. having been received on 06.07.2024 vis a vis the last date fixed for receiving the application which was 30.06.2024. 10. Once this aspect of the matter has been considered by the writ court in its final judgment dated 20.01.2025 which has attained finality as specifically admitted by the learned counsel for the parties consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have sat over the judgment and observations as made by this Court in the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 and to have taken a contrary view as to what has been recorded by the writ court. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the observations made by the writ court in the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025. Let a decision be taken within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench