Dismissed¶22

Ayushi Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikas Seva and Pushthar Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2025/14166/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EWS candidature rejection; Mukha Sevika recruitment; Advertisement No. 5/Pariksha/2022; document verification 28th January 2025; written note of inadvertent EWS application; recruitment completed, another appointee; writ dismissed at admission stage; parties bear own costs; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 7; Manish Mathur, J.; WRIT - A No. 14166 of 2025; decision dated December 15, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Although the petitioner had applied under the Economically Weaker Section quota, she had not indicated any documentation to substantiate the same, and upon examination of the record it was evident she failed to substantiate her EWS claim by documentation at document verification. ¶19

Ayushi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikas Seva and Pushthar Lko and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be directed to be declared successful on the post of Mukha Sevika in terms of Advertisement No. 5/Pariksha/2022 notwithstanding the rejection of her Economically Weaker Category candidature. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

In these circumstances the court found no occasion to grant indulgence to the petitioner.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

It was for want of such documentation that the petitioner's candidature under the Economically Weaker Category was rejected.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7, WRIT - A No. 14166 of 2025 (Manish Mathur, J.; decided December 15, 2025): The petitioner, an applicant under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for the post of Mukha Sevika pursuant to Advertisement No. 5/Pariksha/2022, sought a direction that she be declared successful after her disqualification, contending she was not afforded an opportunity to produce EWS documents at physical verification. Opposite party No. 3 countered that she had indicated the EWS documentation was not applicable, later admitted she had inadvertently applied under EWS (written note dated 28th January 2025 at document verification), and that the recruitment process stood completed with another appointee. Taking the application form and document verification report dated 28th January 2025 on record, the court found the petitioner had applied under the EWS quota without indicating any supporting documentation and failed to substantiate the claim at document verification; her candidature under the Economically Weaker Category was accordingly rejected. Finding no occasion to grant indulgence, the court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, directing parties to bear their own costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14166 of 2025

Ayushi Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Bal Vikas Seva And Pushthar Lko And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Utsav Mishra

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Utsav Mishra learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

¶12

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authority to declare the petitioner successful on the post of Mukha Sevika in terms of advertisement No. 5/Pariksha/2022.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although petitioner had applied under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for the said post but at the time of physical verification of documentation, she was not afforded an opportunity to provide the aforesaid documents resulting in her disqualification.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite party No.3 on the basis of instructions has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that although petitioner had applied under the EWS quota but with regard to documentation had indicated that the same was not applicable. It is further submitted that subsequently the petitioner herself indicated that she inadvertently applied under the EWS quota. A written note with regard to the same dated 28th January 2025 at the time of physical verification of documents has also been indicated. It is further submitted upon instructions that in the mean time the recruitment process has been completed and another person has already been appointed for the

¶15

WRIA No. 14166 of 2025

¶16

¶17

said post.

¶18

The aforesaid two documents such as the application form of petitioner and document verification report dated 28th January 2025 are taken on record.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly those furnished by learned counsel for opposite party No.3, it is evident that although petitioner had applied under Economically Weaker Section quota but had not indicated any documentation to substantiate the same. Therefore it was in such circumstances that her candidature under Economically Weaker Category was rejected.

¶20

Upon examination of documentation produced by learned counsel for opposite party No.3, it is thus evident that although petitioner had applied under the EWS quota but failed to substantiate the same by documentation at the time of document verification.

¶21