Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46268 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8833 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Seema Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Chandra Shukla,Radhey Shyam 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, notices to opposite party no.6 stand dispensed with. 3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.06.2025 whereby representation submitted by petitioner against selection of opposite party no.6 (Smt. Swarnima Kumari) daughter of Sunder Lal,wife of Abhay Kumar on the post of Anganbadi Worker has been rejected. 4. It has been submitted that opposite parties have completely ignored the aspect that petitioner is a widow having two minor children and does not have anyone else to look after her. 5. Mr. Uttam Kumar, learned State counsel has however refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has adverted to the impugned order to submit that petitioner had submitted income certificate indicating her in the above poverty line category and also stood third in the merit list due to which she was not selected. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from the impugned order itself that petitioner applied under the above poverty line category in terms of her income certificate and even otherwise stood third in the merit list with first candidate obtaining 11.991 marks in the BPL category and the second candidate obtaining 7 marks under BPL category as well. The preference for appointment has clearly been indicated in the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, particularly paragraph 3 thereof indicating that widows are required to be given preference only in case they belonged to the BPL category and upon failure of such a candidate, other ladies of the area below poverty line are required to be taken into account. 7. In view of aforesaid fact that petitioner not only stood third in the merit list but also was not in the category of below poverty line, this Court does not find any infringement of the policy regarding appointment of opposite party no.5. 8. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench