POONAM SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS SECY. BAL VIKAS EVAM PUSTAHAR LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIA/7656/2025 · 2025-07-16
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 151546 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 151546 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40606 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7656 of 2025 Petitioner :- Poonam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanat Kumar Ojha,Suresh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 6. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.7 stands dispensed with. Petition has been filed challenging selection of opposite party No.7 on the post of Aganbari Worker in the Centre Naubasta, Block Pachpedwa, District Balrampur.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that opposite party No.7 actually belongs to the above poverty line and has been wrongly included in the BPL category. It is also submitted that the merit obtained by petitioner has been wrongly indicated as 11.883 whereas petitioner had obtained marks of 12.3 in terms of paragraph 7 of the government order dated 21st March, 2023. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 16th July, 2005 which is taken on record and as per which the merit marks obtained by opposite party No.7 are 12.812 and in view of certificate has been considered under BPL category. In view of aforesaid, it is evident that even assuming the marks provided by petitioner to be correct it is still below the marks obtained by opposite party No.7. So far as submission regarding opposite party No.7 being in APL category is concerned, there does not appear to be any corroborative evidence placed on record. In view thereof, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere in this petition at this stage granting liberty to petitioner to approach this Court again in case he obtains any substantive evidence to the effect that opposite party No.7 was under the APL category and has been wrongly considered in the BPL category. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench