ANUPAMA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND PUSHTAHAR AND 5 OTHERS
WRIA/8036/2025 · 2025-07-23
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 153094 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 153094 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42193 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8036 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anupama Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Child Development And Pushtahar And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheerendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 5.
2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no.6 stands dispensed with.
3. Petition has been filed seeking quashing of appointment of opposite party no. 6, Smt. Tarnika Tiwari W/o Sri Akhilesh Kumar who has been appointed on the post of Aganwadi Worker in Gram Sabha Kharauli, Centre Kharauli-I, Block Sikandarpur Karn, District Unnao. Further prayer for grant of appointment to petitioner on the said post has also been sought.
4. Learned State Counsel, however, has been provided written instructions dated 19.07.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which the opposite party no.6 obtained 12.34 marks under the E.W.S. category while petitioner obtained only 6.54 marks under the same E.W.S. category. The said merit marks were allotted in terms of Government Order dated 21.03.2023 whereby procedure for grant of such marks was indicated.
5. It is, therefore, evident that petitioner was placed at the second place with the opposite party no. 6 being indicated at serial no.1 and has, therefore, been selected and appointed.
6. Considering the fact that procedure indicated for allotting marks in the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 is not under challenge and petitioner having been shown second in the select list, this Court does not find any occasion to grant any indulgence.
7. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench