HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12523 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. (1) Heard M.r. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, leaned Counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. (2) In view of order being passed, issuance of notice to opposite party No.4 stands dispensed with. (3) Petition has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned to consider petitioner for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri in the center concerned in view of the fact that appointment issued in favour of selected candidate-Smt.Rekha Devi arrayed as opposite party No.4 already stands cancelled. (4) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance of advertisement issued and application of petitioner, she was placed 2nd in the selected list and due to cancellation of appointment of opposite party No.4, she has legitimate expectation of being considered for appointment. (5) Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 17.10.2025 which are taken on record and as per which, it is admitted that appointment of opposite party No.4 has been cancelled due to submission of forged Educational Certificates. He has placed reliance on paragraph - 11 (V) of Government Order dated 21.03.2023 to submit that in case selected candidate joins and his candidature is subsequently cancelled, provision is only for issuance of a fresh advertisement and not for consideration of person who is placed in the second. (6) Upon submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Misra, Swatantra Dev Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Anamika Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gramya Vikas Deptt., Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) material on record, including written instructions, it is admitted by opposite parties that opposite party No.4, Smt.Rekha Devi was selected for the said post but appointment was cancelled in view of finding recorded by the committee of having obtained appointment on the basis of forged Educational Certificates. (7) It is also admitted that petitioner stood second in the aforesaid selection. So far as reliance placed by learned State Counsel on paragraph - 11 (V) of Government Order dated 21.03.2023 is concerned, the issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 1059 (SB) of 2001 in the following manner:- "10. As proposition of law, we are in agreement that once a person is appointed on a post, his subsequent termination or resignation, causing vacancy will not be treated to be the same vacancy for which earlier recruitment was made and such vacancy cannot be filled in from merit/waiting list prepared in earlier selection. Termination or resignation would result in a new vacancy and for that purpose a fresh process of selection has to be undergone. 11. But such proposition will apply only when a valid appointment is made by the authorities concerned. In the present case, Sher Bahadur Singh submitted a fake and forged document and on that basis, procured appointment. Forgery vitiates everything. Therefore, appointment of Sher Bahadur Singh was a nullity and void ab initio. It was no appointment in the eyes of law It is for this reason, when authorities found that documents submitted by Sher Bahadur Singh, i.e. High School Certificate was forged and fake, they canceled his appointment, which attained finality. So, here is not a case where any new vacancy has arisen due to termination or resignation by appointee, but here is a case where a person procured appointment by plying fraud and when authorities came to know and detected such fraud, they cancelled appointment itself. The appointment being void ab-initio and nullity, result would be as if there was no appointment in the aforesaid vacancy. Hence, the same vacancy would be available to the next person in merit list, since he would WRIA No. 12523 of 2025 2 be treated to be first person in merit list, after excluding the person who played fraud i.e. Sher Bahadur Singh. It is not in dispute that next person was Harbans Singh, therefore, in our view, he was rightly appointed and proposition of law canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner will not apply to the facts of present case." (8) In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it being evident that appointment of opposite party No.4 has been cancelled on account of submission of forged educational certificates, the said appointment would be void ab initio and nullity, due to which it can be deemed that there was no appointment at all. In such circumstances, relying upon aforesaid judgment in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra), it is evident that provisions of paragraph - 11 (V) of Government Order dated 21.03.2023 so far as it relates to issuance of fresh advertisement would not be applicable. (9) Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances and law enunciated, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite party Nos.2 & 3 collectively to consider petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri for the center concerned without adverting to issuance of any fresh advertisement for the said post, in case petitioner is otherwise qualified and there is no other impediment. The authority concerned shall also take into consideration the aspect whether any appeal has been preferred by opposite party No.4 against her cancellation order and its outcome. In case any appeal has been preferred, petitioner's candidature shall be subject to the outcome of appeal. The decision with regard to petitioner's representation shall be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (10) Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 30, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 12523 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench