Priti Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Ofchild Development and Nutrition Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Priti Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Ofchild Development and Nutrition Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned letter dated 28.02.2025 set aside as anti-dated; petitioner given liberty to file a fresh representation to opposite party no. 5 within ten days, to be considered sympathetically through a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application could validly be rejected on the sole ground that her income certificate was issued beyond six months from the date of the advertisement, when the advertisement dated 26.09.2024 itself nowhere mentioned such a stipulation. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 28.02.2025 is anti-dated: it was passed on 28.02.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application dated 03.03.2025, which could not have been done; this is a clear case of non-application of mind, and the impugned order is accordingly set aside.

Key takeaways

Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to opposite party no. 5 within ten days; if filed, it shall be considered sympathetically by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 3036 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 18; Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; order dated 19.3.2025; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:15928). Priti Pathak petitioned for quashing (Certiorari) of Respondent No.-5's letter dated 28.02.2025 (received 11.03.2025) rejecting her application for appointment as Anganwari Karyakarti pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.09.2024 (direct recruitment on honorarium). The rejection rested on her income certificate being beyond six months from the date of advertisement — a stipulation absent from the advertisement but attributed by the State's Standing Counsel to Clause 3(F)(III) of the Government Order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure No. 7). The Court did not adjudicate the six-month requirement; instead it found the impugned order anti-dated, having been passed on 28.02.2025 while purporting to reject an application dated 03.03.2025 — 'a clear case of non-application of mind' — and set the order aside. The petitioner was given liberty to file a fresh representation to opposite party no. 5 within ten days, to be considered sympathetically by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks. Petition disposed of. No statute or precedent was cited.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15928

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3036 of 2025 Petitioner :- Priti Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Ofchild Development And Nutrition Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh,Abhishek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 5.

By this petition, the petitioners has prayed for the following relief:-

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 28.02.2025 (received on 11.03.2025) passed by the Respondent No.-5, as contained in Annexure No. -1 to this Writ Petition;

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.09.2024 whereby applications were invited for the appointment of Anganwari Karyakarti on honorarium by way of direct recruitment, the petitioner applied for the said post.

It has been further submitted that according to the income certificate submitted to the petitioner, she falls within the category of poverty line. The advertisement dated 26.09.2024 nowhere mentions the stipulation that the income certified submitted by the incumbent shall be within six months from the date of advertisement, however, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.02.2025 on the ground that the income certificate submitted by the petitioner is beyond the period of six months from the date of advertisement.

It is also contended that, in the absence of such a requirement in the advertisement, the petitioner's application should not have

been rejected. Furthermore, the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, issued by Opposite Party No. 5, is anti-dated, as it rejects the petitioner’s application dated 03.03.2025 vide order dated 28.02.2025, which is procedurally impossible.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the contention of the petitioner and has argued that the advertisement clearly states that the procedure outlined in the Government Order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure No. 7) shall be followed. Clause 3(F)(III) of the said Government Order clearly provides that the income certificate submitted by the incumbents must be issued within six months from the date of the advertisement. Since the petitioner’s income certificate was beyond the period of six months, therefore, her application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.02.2025.

Perused the record.

A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it has been passed on 28.02.2025 rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 03.03.2025 which could not have been done. This is a clear case of non-application of mind. The order impugned is anti-dated and is accordingly set aside.

Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to opposite party no. 5 within ten days from today and if such application is filed, the same shall be considered sympathetically by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks.

With the observations made herein-above, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 19.3.2025/R.C.

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench