WRIA/13438/2025 of ANEETA DEVI Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND PUSHTAHAR LKO. AND 4 OTHERS on 21 November 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to

4. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.5 stand dispensed with..

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of selection of opposite party no.5, Anamika Devi, daughter of Sri Beerpal on the post of Anganbadi Worker in the village concerned. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to appoint petitioner on the said post has also been sought.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that income certificate of opposite party no.5 has been cancelled but even thereafter she is being continued on the post of Anganbadi Worker whereas such appointment is required to be cancelled. It is submitted that since petitioner was placed second in the select list, appointment on the said post should be offered to her consequent upon cancellation of appointment of opposite party no.5.

5. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 15.11.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and on that basis denies that appointment of opposite party no.5 has ever been cancelled. It has been submitted that petitioner as well as opposite party no.5 had applied under the 'Above Poverty Line' [APL] category and therefore cancellation of income certificate of opposite party no.5, even assumed, is irrelevant. It is submitted that in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Salik Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Aneeta Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Child Development And Pushtahar Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

pursuance of appointment of opposite party no.5 vide order dated 24.03.2025, she is continuing on the post of Anganbadi Worker and therefore the relief sought in the instant petition should not be granted.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the sole basis of claim of petitioner is the alleged cancellation of income certificate of opposite party no.5. In the supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioner, information provided to petitioner under Right to Information Act has been appended as Annexure SA-3 with paragraph-5 thereof indicating that although the income certificate of opposite party no.5 has been cancelled but since opposite party no.5 has been selected under the APL category, it would not make any difference on the merit or appointment of opposite party no.5. The same analogy has also been indicated in written instructions dated 15.11.2025.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner also does not dispute the fact that opposite party no.5 has been selected under the APL Category. In such circumstance, learned counsel has not been able to explain as to how cancellation of income certificate of opposite party no.5 would have any bearing on the selection, appointment and continuance of opposite party no.5 as Anganbadi Worker.

8. In such circumstances, since appointment of opposite party no.5 has not been cancelled till date, no relief as sought by petitioner can be granted.

9. The petition therefore being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13438 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench