Allowed¶16

Kavita Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2026WRIA/7299/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Karyakatri appointment Ballia; rejection of claim quashed for breach of natural justice (no opportunity of hearing); remand to District Programme Officer for fresh decision after hearing; petitioner second in merit list; Clause 11(V) Government Order dated 31.03.2023; alleged forged documents of selected candidate Smt. Pallavi Prajapati; WRIT - A No. 7299 of 2026; Prakash Padia, J.; decided May 14, 2026; disposed at admission stage with consent.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the District Programme Officer, Ballia, with a direction to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; the impugned order to remain subject to the final outcome of the fresh order. ¶16

Kavita Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, being second in the merit list, is entitled to consideration for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri after cancellation of respondent no.3's appointment. +2 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the District Programme Officer, Ballia/respondent no.2 is liable to be set aside and is quashed.

¶15

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed; respondent no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the impugned order will be subject to the final outcome of the fresh order.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.) allowed WRIT - A No. 7299 of 2026 challenging the order dated 10.02.2026 of the District Programme Officer, Ballia (respondent no.2) rejecting petitioner Kavita Devi's claim for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri. With consent of counsel the petition was disposed of at the admission stage. The Court held that because the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, it was liable to be set aside, and accordingly quashed it. Respondent no.2 was directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order remaining subject to the final outcome of that fresh order. Contentions regarding the petitioner's second position in the merit list, the applicability of Clause 11(V) of the Government Order dated 31.03.2023, and the alleged forged documents of respondent no.3-Smt. Pallavi Prajapati were not decided on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 7299 of 2026

¶3

Kavita Devi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)		: Shagun K. Saran
Counsel for Respondent(s)		: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 6

¶7

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶8

The order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the District Programme Officer, Ballia/respondent no.2 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on Anganwadi Karyakatri was rejected is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶9

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that once the person selected namely respondent no.3-Smt. Pallavi Prajapati on the aforesaid post and her appointment has been cancelled, the petitioner being second in merit list is entitled for consideration of her case for appointment on the aforesaid post. It is further argued that Clause 11(V) of the Government Order dated 31.03.2023 will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case hence petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri. It is further argued by counsel for the petitioner that appointment of respondent no.3 was made on the basis of the forged documents hence same is ab initio and the same may be treated no appointment in the eyes of law.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶11

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶12

Since the order impugned has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the District Programme Officer, Ballia/respondent no.2 is

¶13

WRIA No. 7299 of 2026

¶14

¶15

liable to be set aside and the same is hereby quashed.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order impugned will be subject to final outcome of fresh order.

¶17

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶18

May 14, 2026 Pramod Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PRAKASH PADIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kavita Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shamim Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Posi Ram Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Deepanjaly Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mamta Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Shahnawaz vs State of U.P. and 4 Others