Dismissed¶13

Km. Meena Arya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikash. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2025WRIA/3818/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganbadi Worker recruitment; advertisement dated 14.10.2024; para-8 of advertisement; District Programme Officer Bal Vikas Gonda; income certificate six-month rule; Government Order dated 21.3.2023; participation in selection process bars subsequent challenge; Anupal Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173; writ of Mandamus and Certiorari; petition dismissed; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:20146.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner cannot challenge the selection process once she has participated in the same; the law in this regard being settled (relying on Anupal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 2 SCC 173), the prayer for Mandamus to consider her candidature fails on this ground. ¶8

Km. Meena Arya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikash. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20146

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3818 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Km. Meena Arya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikash. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambrish Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5.

¶7

The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Aganbadi Worker under the advertisement dated 14.10.2024 issued by the opposite party no.3 District Programme Officer Bal Vikas, Gonda.

¶8

On the other hand, the petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing para-8 of the advertisement dated 14.10.2024. The petitioner cannot challenge the selection process once she has participated in the same. The law in this regard is settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anupal Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 2

¶9

SCC 173 held that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.

¶10

Perused the record.

¶11

Perusal of the Government Order dated 21.3.2023 indicates that the income certificate of the incumbent should have been issued within six months from the date of advertisement. Admittedly, the advertisement is of dated 14.10.2024,

¶12

whereas, the income certificate of the petitioner has been issued on 28.7.2023 which is beyond six months from the date of advertisement. Thus, on this ground also, there appears to be no illegality in not considering the candidature of the petitioner, as she has failed to produce the income certificate as required vide the advertisement/Government Order dated 21.3.2023.

¶13

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 9.4.2025

¶15

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶16

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

Km. Meena Arya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikash. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Meena Arya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikash. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Reshmi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Pustahar Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Anita Kanogiya and 74 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health and 5 Others

Amitendra Prabhat Vs Secy. U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission and Another

Man Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Dr. Ram Vishal Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Engineering Lko and 2 Others