Manju Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Manju Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the authority handling the petitioner's application for cancellation of opposite party no.5's Domicile Certificate to expedite the decision after hearing opposite party no.5, with the petitioner's rights to be considered if eligible upon cancellation of the certificate; petition finally disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party no.5, Ankita Devi, was wrongly selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Centre Devgawan-I despite allegedly being a resident of Village Khagesiyamau, and whether the petitioner, a resident of the same village, ought to have been selected in her place. +1 more

Court's answer

The authority dealing with the petitioner's application for cancellation of the Domicile Certificate of opposite party no.5 is directed to expedite its decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to opposite party no.5 as well.

Ratio / Principle

In case the aforesaid Domicile Certificate is cancelled, the rights of the petitioner, in case she is eligible, would be considered.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Writ-A No. 10530 of 2025) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the select list by which opposite party no.5, Ankita Devi, was selected as Anganwadi Worker for Centre Devgawan-I, on the ground that she was a resident of Village Khagesiyamau while the petitioner was a resident of the same village. The State relied on a Domicile Certificate issued by the competent authority describing opposite party no.5 as a resident of Village Devgawan, which had not been cancelled till date. The Court did not cancel or set aside the selection; it directed the authority seized of the petitioner's representation/complaint seeking cancellation of the Domicile Certificate to expedite its decision after affording opposite party no.5 an opportunity of hearing, and observed that if the certificate were cancelled, the petitioner's rights, if eligible, would be considered. Petition finally disposed of (Manish Mathur, J.; September 12, 2025).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 10530 of 2025

Manju Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Vibhag Lucknow And 4 Others

Pushtahar Vibhag Lucknow And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Misra, Avnish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4. In view of order being passed notices to opposite party no.1 stands dispensed with.

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging select list whereby opposite party no.5, Ankita Devi, daughter of Chetram has been selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Centre Devgawan-I.

It has been submitted that opposite party no.5 has been wrongly selected for the Centre since she is a resident of another Village Khagesiyamau where she is residing with her husband Chhanga @ Kuldeep Kumar, son of Rameshwar. It is also submitted that since petitioner is a resident of the same Village, she was required to be selected in place of opposite party no.5.

Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 10.09.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which opposite party no.5 has been selected on the basis of Domicile Certificate issued by the competent authority indicating her as a resident of Village Devgawan for which she has been selected. It is submitted that since aforesaid Domicile Certificate has not been cancelled till date by any competent authority, the same was required to be taken into consideration as has been done. Learned counsel for petitioner admits that aforesaid document has not been cancelled by any authority but submits that petitioner has already submitted a representation/complaint with regard to aforesaid Domicile Certificate before authority concerned.

WRIA No. 10530 of 2025

2

In view thereof, the authority dealing with application of petitioner for cancellation of Domicile Certificate of opposite party no.5 is directed to expedite decision in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to opposite party no.5 as well.

In case, aforesaid Domicile Certificate is cancelled, rights of petitioner, in case eligible, would be considered.

With aforesaid direction, the petition stands finally disposed of .

(Manish Mathur,J.)

September 12, 2025

kvg/-

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