Shailja Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Director Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar Vibhag Lko. and 5 Others

This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No.5632 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶11

The appellant had applied for engagement as Aanganbadi Karyakatri. At the point of time when she applied, she was unmarried, however, before the selection could take place, she got married, based on which, a complaint was made and an inquiry was conducted by the respondents, wherein it was found that the appellant, indeed, got married and was staying at her matrimonial home and consequently, her candidature was rejected. Subsequent thereto, another candidate was selected.

¶12

Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed wherein learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and noticing the facts, came to the conclusion that the petition was devoid of merit and consequently, dismissed the same.

¶13

When the present appeal came up before the Court, a coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 08.10.2025, opined that it would be better if a fresh inquiry got conducted pertaining to the appellant residing at her in laws' place and directed the respondents to conduct the inquiry. Pursuant to the said direction, a report has been produced by learned Standing counsel, wherein Child Development Project Officer, Huzurpur,

¶14

SPLA No. 189 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Bahraich has undertaken the inquiry and has come to the conclusion that since the date of marriage, i.e., 02.03.2025, the appellant was staying at her in laws' place.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that as the appellant was eligible on the date of application and there is a provision in the scheme of adjusting the selected/working Karyakatri at the place of marriage, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the candidature of the appellant.

¶18

Learned Standing counsel submitted that during the course of the selection process itself, when it was indicated that the appellant, post her marriage, was staying at place different from where the Aanganbadi Kendra is situated and it was one of the eligibility conditions that the candidate must be resident of that area, the appellant lost her eligibility and her candidature was rightly rejected.

¶19

Submissions have been made that though the appellant, in the petition, claimed that she was still staying at her parental home, based on a detailed inquiry conducted under the directions of the Court, the said fact was found to be incorrect and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.

¶20

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶21

The eligibility conditions for selection as Aanganbadi Karykatri, inter alia, is that the candidate must be a local resident where Aanganbadi Kendra is situated. It is true that on the date of application, the appellant was resident of the area in question, however, it is also a fact that on account of her marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home which, as indicated, is at a distance of 27 kms. from the Aanganbadi Kendra . The very purpose, for which Aanganbadi Kendras are established and the eligibility condition of the Aanganbadi Karyakatri being local resident, in case the appellant was engaged, would get frustrated as it was practically not possible for the appellant to have served the Aanganbadi Kendra from her matrimonial home.

¶22

SPLA No. 189 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

So far as the plea raised that in terms of the scheme, on account of marriage, the petitioner would have become eligible for being adjusted at place of her matrimonial home is concerned, the said provision pertains to those who are already engaged and not for those who are yet to be engaged.

¶25

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶26

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶27

November 20, 2025

¶28

Harshita/P.Sri.

¶29

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

Shailja Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Director Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar Vibhag Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailja Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Director Bal Vikas Seva and Pushtahar Vibhag Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Dutt Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prison Administration and Refrom Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Upendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing Lko and 3 Others vs Sant Kumar

Manoj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Lko. and 6 Others

Bhagwatideen Prajapati and 5 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. Chairman Ministry of Railways New Delhi and 6 Others

Km. Poonam Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others