Disposed¶14

Madhu Bala Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Baal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2025WRIA/4245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi karyakatri appointment; consideration of candidature on merits; fake income certificate allegation; Naib Tehsildar Tulsipur inquiry; BPL category candidate; District Program Officer (Baal Vikas); fresh representation; reasoned and speaking order; writ disposed with liberty; mandamus; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT-A 4245 of 2025; Madhu Bala Bharti v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.2 (District Program Officer (Baal Vikas)/Secretary) within two weeks; respondent No.2 to decide within a further four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order. ¶14

Madhu Bala Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Baal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should be commanded by mandamus to consider the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of anganwadi karyakatri in village Ramnagara, Block Gaisadi on its merits, considering the allegation that the income certificate submitted by respondent No.5 was found to be fake. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.2, i.e. District Program Officer (Baal Vikas)/Secretary, within a period of two weeks.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The State's written instructions are silent regarding consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment on the post in question and also do not depict the respective merit of the two candidates.

¶13

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 shall take a decision on the fresh representation within a further period of four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. 4245 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29029; Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Order Date 16.5.2025). Petitioner Madhu Bala Bharti sought mandamus commanding respondent No.2 to consider her application for appointment to the post of anganwadi karyakatri in village Ramnagara, Block Gaisadi, on its merits, considering that the income certificate submitted by private respondent No.5 had been found to be fake. Per the learned standing counsel's written instructions, an inquiry by the Naib Tehsildar, Tulsipur found the complaint allegation false, the income certificate was rightly issued, and the private respondent is a BPL category candidate. The Court observed that the instructions were silent regarding consideration of the petitioner's case and did not depict the respective merit of the two candidates, and disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh representation to respondent No.2 (District Program Officer (Baal Vikas)/Secretary) within two weeks, such decision to be taken within a further four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order. Notices to respondent No.5 were dispensed with. No quantum awarded; no statute or precedent cited.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29029

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4245 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Madhu Bala Bharti

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Baal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Narain Mishra,Vimal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶9

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶10

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of anganwadi karyakatri in village Ramnagara in Block Gaisadi on its merits, considering the fact that the income certificate submitted by the respondent no.5 had been found to be fake;"

¶11

Learned standing counsel, on the basis of written instructions which are taken on record, has opposed the petition and has submitted that pleadings in the petition as well as prayer are misconceived. He submits that the inquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Tulsipur in which the allegation made in the complaint against the private respondent that her income certificate has not been issued properly has been found false in fact the income certificate has been rightly issued to the private respondent and she is a BPL category candidate. He prays that petition may be dismissed.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

The instructions provided by learned standing counsel are silent regarding the consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post in question. The instructions also do not depict as to what is the respective merit of both the candidates.

¶14

In view of above, the petition is disposed of w ith a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.2 i.e. District Program Officer (Baal Vikas)/Secretary within a period of two weeks' from today who shall take a decision within a further period of four weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶16

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

Madhu Bala Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Baal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Bala Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Baal Vikas Evam Pushtahaar Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 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

Diwakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Lko. and 4 Others

Constable Civil Police , Personnel No. 162518362 , Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Bal Vikas Evam Pusthahar Yojna Lko. and 4 Others

Km. Punam Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Others

Udayraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.