SONEYA UPADHYAYA @ SONEYA SHARMA v. THE STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIA/6858/2026 · 2026-05-06
Prakash Padia
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1609 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1609 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6858 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. After some arguments, it is argued that in view of the facts as narrated in paragraph nos.15 & 16, the petitioner is not completed the physical efficiency test (PET) and i.e. why he was declared not qualified in the aforesaid test. Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the writ petition reads as follows:-
"15. That, the Petitioner had requested before the Nodal Officer, at 35th Bn PAC, Lucknow, to take the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) of the petitioner, after two weeks, because, she was having Monthly Menstrual Cycle (Periods) but the Nodal Officer Refused the Request of the petitioner. 16. That, it is important to mention here, that due to the Second Day of the Monthly Menstrual Cycle (Periods) of the Petitioner on dated 17/03/2026, Cramps in the Stomach were very acute."
2. In this view of the matter, it is argued that respondents be directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for re-Race on compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness-Rules. 3. Learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court instructions dated 06.05.2026, the same is taken on record. 4. In paragraph-5 of the aforesaid instructions a reference has been made in respect of the Judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Special Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Sr. Advocate, Vaishnavi Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Soneya Upadhyaya @ Soneya Sharma .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
Appeal (Defective) No.380 of 2024 (State of U.P. and others vs. Geeta Rani) decided on 15.05.2024. Paragraph-29 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
"29. In view of the above, it is provided that as the respondent-petitioner has failed to qualify in the physical examination for the post of Sub- Inspector, it will remain open for her to apply afresh seeking compassionate appointment on any other suitable post in the Department, which may be offered to her as per her eligibility and suitability. It is also provided that in the event the respondent-petitioner makes any such application within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove as well as taking into account the Government Order dated 18.09.2015 within next three weeks.
If the petitioner is considered entitled for any other post by the department, the same shall be offered to her within a period of 30 days' from the date of decision to be taken by the authority. "
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the paragraph- 29 of the aforesaid judgment as quoted above. May 7, 2026 Swati WRIA No. 6858 of 2026 2 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad