HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10979 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 7. In view of order being passed in this petition, notices to opposite party no.8 stand dispensed with. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 04.07.2025 whereby petitioner's representation against selection of opposite party no.8, Smt. Laxmi, wife of Mr. Ram Singh as Anganwadi Worker in the Centre concerned has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to appoint petitioner on the said post has also been sought. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that opposite party no.8 has been selected under the Below Poverty Line [BPL] category but aforesaid appointment is illegal in view of fact that the said person is not resident of the same Ward and her appointment therefore is not in accordance with Government Order dated 21.03.2023. 4. Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has raised a preliminary objection that petition is not maintainable due to lack of locus standi of petitioner. It is submitted that even in the impugned order, it has been indicated that petitioner stands at serial no.2 in 'Above Poverty Line' [APL] category with 11.338 marks while the person in the APL category, at serial no.1 Smt. Archana Singh has obtained 19.171 marks but opposite party no.8 has been appointed since she was coming within BPL category and preference is required to be given to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satyendra Kumar, Arun Kumar, Kuldeep Kumar, Shravan Kumar, Varunesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohini Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Child Development And Nutrition Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) her. 5. Being confronted with such a submission, learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute the fact that petitioner is indicated at serial no.2 in the select list of APL category while opposite party no.8 has been selected as a BPL candidate. It is thus evident that person selected at serial no.1 in the APL category has not approached this Court and even if the selection of opposite party no.8 is quashed, it would not give any automatic right to petitioner to be selected. 6. In view thereof, the preliminary objection pertaining to locus standi of petitioner is upheld. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. September 22, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 10979 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench