Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125705 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8845 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Pravesh Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Naghma Qadir Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Ms. Naghma Qadir, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner made on 06.02.2025 wherein she has claimed for appointment on vacant post of Rozgar Sevak. 3. Shri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha submits that as per the instructions petitioner has earlier been removed on certain charges by resolution of the Goan Sabha dated 09.09.2011 against which petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ A No. 5598 of 2012 which came to be dismissed on 01.02.2012 leaving it open for the petitioner to make a representation to the authority to reconsider the matter as far as the bar applicable to her from filing further application against future vacancies. The said application also came to be rejected vide order dated 19.04.2012. In these circumstances, therefore, it is contended that no fresh writ petition for any representation for fresh appointment against the vacant post of Rozgar Sewak could have been filed and the petitioner has very conveniently concealed these facts in this writ petition. 4. From the order of the writ Court dated 01.02.2012 I find that it has been passed after considering the claim of the petitioner as per the policy and the petition came to be dismissed with the only rider that the petitioner can make a representation insofar as the bar is concerned from applying against future vacancies. The said representation was also rejected bring found baseless by the District Magistrate concerned 19.04.2012. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has no explanation as to why petitioner concealed all these facts and why she failed to challenge the order passed way back in the year 2012 rejecting her representation. 6. This petition is held to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad