Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 151397 (ALL)

MADHURI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. PRIN. SECY. CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE AND NUTRITION LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/7601/2025 · 2025-07-24

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42681 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7601 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madhuri Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Child Development Service And Nutrition Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girija Shankar Tripathi,Jai Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Deep Shikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for appointing petitioner on the post of Aganwadi Worker in terms of advertisement dated 26.09.2024 for the Center Ahuri-4, Gram Sabha Ahuri, Tiloi, District Amethi. 3. In pursuance of directions issued earlier on 15.07.2025, learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 15.07.2025, which are taken on record. 4. It has been the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that she was the sole applicant under the handicapped quota for filling up the said vacancy in Center Ahuri-4 but despite the said fact, she has not been selected. 5. In the written instructions, it has been indicated that selections were made for the entire Development Block having 44 vacancies on the post of Aganwadi Worker and applying 4% reservation for the handicapped quota, 1.7 posts i.e. one post was reserved under the said category. The instructions also indicate that there were three applicants under the handicapped category including petitioner and as per merit marks, was placed third at 6.06 marks obtained by petitioner with the selected candidate Sandhya Soni obtaining 20.95 marks and one Sudha Tiwari being placed second having 14.413 marks. 6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances as indicated in the written instructions, it is evident that petitioner was not the sole applicant under the handicapped category and was in fact placed third in the merit list. 7. Considering aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence. 8. The petition, therefore, is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench