KUMARI LALLI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/6364/2025 · 2025-11-04
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 186093 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 186093 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 6364 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sudeep Kumar Singh learned State counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority to take necessary action on the application filed by petitioner.
3. Amendment application has also been filed seeking to amend the prayer for a direction to opposite parties to consider and decide her representation.
4. In view of order being passed, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the amendment application.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, being fully eligible and qualified for the post of Aganbadi Karyakatri, had applied for appointment but she has not been considered for appointment.
6. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 28th May, 2025, which are taken on record and as per which it is submitted that as per record, the date of birth of petitioner is 7th July, 1987 due to which she is aged 36 years and is therefore overage for appointment on the post of Aganbadi Karyakatri. She has adverted to paragraph 2 of the government order dated 21st March, 2023 to indicate that minimum age required for applicant is 18 years and maximum is 35 years and since petitioner was not within the aforesaid age group, her candidature was not considered.
7. In view of submissions having been made, it is also evident from the affidavit filed in support of present writ petition that petitioner herself has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shilendra Kumar, Rachit Sondhi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kumari Lalli .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
indicated her age as 38 years and in the identification document being adhar card also her date of birth is indicated as 7th July, 1987.
8. As such, it is admitted case that petitioner was overage and did not come within purview of government order dated 21st March, 2023.
9. Considering aforesaid, no relief can be granted to petitioner. The petition fails and is therefore dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. November 4, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 6364 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench