SHALINI TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF APPOINTMENT LKO. AND ANOTHER
WRIA/8908/2025 · 2025-08-08
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 156889 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 156889 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46291 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8908 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shalini Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra,Suresh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 whose power filed today is taken on record.
2. Petition has been filed simply for a direction to opposite parties to consider petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2025.
3. Learned counsel for opposite party has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that neither the select list pertaining to selections made on the post of Mukhya Sevika have been challenged nor is there any prayer for consideration of petitioner on the said post and since the representation is not statutory in nature, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.
4. Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also been provided written instructions dated 11.01.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which the cut off marks for the handicapped quota, under which petitioner had applied was 40.7229 whereas petitioner obtained only 28.4476 and therefore was way below the cut off marks.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to explain as to why neither the select list was challenged nor any prayer seeking her
consideration has been made. The representation also does not appear to be statutory in nature. Even as per the instructions provided by learned counsel for opposite party no.2, petitioner has not been able to make the cut off marks.
6. In view of aforesaid, petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench