Allahabad High Court
/13446/2025 of SMT. SEEMA DEVI Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. THE SECY. DEPTT. OF BAL VIKAS SEWA EVAM PUSHTAHAR LKO. AND 5 OTHERS on 19 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13446 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 8 October 2025 whereby petitioner's appointment as
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 13446 of 2025
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 8 October 2025 whereby petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi worker in the center concerned has been terminated on the allegation that she obtained the appointment on the basis of forged educational certificates.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that a bare perusal of the impugned order will make it evident that it has been passed in an ex parte manner without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner nor even considering her reply.
4. Learned state counsel has been provided written instructions dated 15 November 2025, copy of which is taken on record and on that basis submits that ample opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner on 16 October 2025 and the impugned order has been passed when petitioner was unable to furnish any satisfactory reply regarding on the original certificates.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that the same has been passed in an ex parte manner with no consideration of any reply being submitted by petitioner. It does not appear that petitioner was ever confronted with any show cause notice with regard to any material regarding her educational qualifications being found to be false or fabricated. It appears that no report of any of the educational Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Pheran Dwivedi, Subhash Kumar Verma, Vineeta Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Seema Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Deptt. Of Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
institutions was ever considered. Evidently, the impugned order has been passed without affording to opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 8th October 2025 is quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to allegations levelled against petitioner but only after serving a show cause notice and providing all the material on the basis of which the authorities have denied a satisfaction that the certificates produced by the petitioner were fabricated. The opposite parties shall also consider the reply submitted by petitioner.
7. For the purposes of aforesaid proceedings, petitioner shall be reinstated in service which shall be subject to final order passed. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. November 19, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 13446 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench