Jyotsna Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Women and Child Development New Delhi and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23587

Court No. - 13

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 239 of 2024

Applicant :- Jyotsna Singh Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Women And Child Development New Delhi And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Pankaj Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

(C.M.Application No.1 of 2024)

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the review applicant, Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, who has filed memo of appearance which is taken on record and Sri S.K.Khare, learned State counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 6, who has also been provided notice in terms of direction issued earlier by this Court.

¶8

An application has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay seeking review of judgment and order dated 23.09.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite parties do not have any objections to the said application.

¶10

Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application is sufficient and as such delay in filing review is condoned.

¶11

(Order on memo of Review Application)

¶12

The application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 5250 of 2024 and other connected matters.

¶13

Learned counsel for the review applicant has drawn attention to paragraph 6 of the judgement to submit that wrong statement was made by learned State counsel at the time of hearing to indicate that the resolution dated 23.08.2024 had been passed to the effect that petitioners would be given preference for recruitment in the new scheme.

¶14

It is submitted that in fact there is no resolution passed on 23.08.2024, which was a direction issued by the Central Government for absorption of petitioners who were earlier

¶15

working under the Mahila Shakti Kendra Scheme to the Hub for Empowerment of Women Scheme. It is submitted that aforesaid incorrect submission has changed the very course of benefits applicable to the petitioners.

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant with the submission that paragraph 6 of the judgment and order dated 23.09.2024 is only indicative of submissions which were recorded.

¶17

Sri S.K.Khare, learned State counsel submits that he has received instructions dated 23.04.2025 from the Director, Women Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow indicating that all the petitioners have been provided fresh appointment under the new scheme. He therefore submits that the review application even otherwise has become infructuous.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that bone of contention with regard to petitioners is the submission of the State counsel which has been recorded in paragraph 6 of the judgment to the effect that the resolution has been passed on 23.08.2024 regarding preference to be given to petitioner for recruitment under the new scheme.

¶19

A perusal of paragraph 6 of the judgment and order dated 23.09.2024 indicates that only a submission of learned State counsel has been recorded in the aforesaid judgment and the said submission has not been relied or adjudicated upon on merits in the judgment. The aspect as to whether the said submission pertains to resolution or direction by the Central Government would be subject matter to be agitated by the review applicant in the appropriate proceedings in case the applicant is dissatisfied with the subsequent appointment as per instructions dated 23.04.2025.

¶20

In view of aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record of the said judgement.

¶21

The review application is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Renu/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jyotsna Singh v. Union of India Thru. Ministry of Women and Child Development New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotsna Singh v. Union of India Thru. Ministry of Women and Child Development New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faiyaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Raju Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ranjeet Pandey vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat

Kishu Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another