HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10694 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposing parties 1 to 6. In view of order being passed, notice to opposing party No. 7 stands dispensed with. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated May 19th, 2025, whereby petitioner's representation against appointment of opposite party No.7, Smt. Suman, wife of Ram Kailash and for her own appointment on the post of Anganbari Worker in the center concerned has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that opposite parties have appointed opposite party No.7 on the post of Anganbari Worker ignoring the fact that her husband is working in the postal department and therefore she has incorrectly claimed under the category of below poverty line. It is also submitted that petitioner's application for appointment has been rejected only on the ground that she incorrectly applied under the scheduled tribe category whereas she actually belonged to scheduled caste one. It is submitted that the error indicated having been made by petitioner was inadvertent and has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar versus State of Bihar and others passed in Civil Appeal No.1 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.12230 of 2023) to submit that it has been held therein that application forms of person belonging to the deprived communities should not be rejected on technicalities. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Abhishek Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Purnima Alias Purnima Gautam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar Vibhag Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned state counsel has been provided written instructions dated 6th September 2025, which are taken on record and submits that petitioner's application form has been rejected on the ground that she applied under the scheduled tribe category but was unable to furnish any certificate to corroborate the same. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect does not come within technical one requiring petitioner's application form to reconsider. 5. With regard to the appointment of opposite party No.7, it is submitted that the same was made on the basis of income certificates furnished by opposite party No.7 which has not been cancelled till date. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly paragraphs 21, 22, and 23 of the writ petition, it has been impliedly admitted by petitioner that she made an error while filling up the application form by indicating her belonging to the scheduled tribe category instead of scheduled caste to which she belonged. It is thus evident that admittedly petitioner applied under an incorrect category which was inapplicable to her. 7. Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) was dealing with the case where the date of birth of applicant was incorrectly recorded as December 8th, 1997, instead of December 18th, 1997. Interference was made only on the ground that applicant/petitioner derived no benefit from the incorrect date mentioned in the application form. It was in this context that the incorrect indication in the application form was treated to be inconsequential and merely technical. The judgment also thereafter considered the application and considered the aspect as to difference between a material error and a trivial error and has reached a conclusion that since the appellant therein did not derive any advantage, the same indicated the error to be trivial and not material. The distinction has also been made between the candidate giving wrong and misleading criteria as against inadvertent error. 8. In the considered opinion of this court, the distinction arrived at by Supreme Court in the case is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case where the error indicated is not trivial but WRIA No. 10694 of 2025 2 material since petitioner was claiming under a category which was inapplicable to her. There is no provision for any correction of such an error, particularly at this stage when opposite party No. 7 has already been appointed on the said post. 9. It is also evident that the appointment of opposite party No.7 has been made on the basis of income certificate produced by her which admittedly has not been cancelled by any competent authority. 10. In view of the discussions made herein above, it being evident that error made on the part of petitioner was not trivial but material one, particularly since it pertained to the grant of reservation, no indulgence can be granted to petitioner. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. September 17, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 10694 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench