Smt. Anamika Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Vibhag Lko. And

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Jauhari learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 3rd July 2025, whereby her appointment as Anganwadi worker in the center being Asaidapur has been cancelled.

3. Earlier on 14th August 2025, following the order had been passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties. 1A. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. It has been submitted that by means of impugned order dated 05.07.2025, petitioner's selection as Anganbadi worker in the Centre for Asaidapur Ward No.15 has been cancelled on the ground that a complaint had been received that she in fact is a resident of Ward no.19 and not Ward No.15 and therefore could not have been appointed in terms of paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023.

3. It has been submitted that impugned order does not advert to any material to record a finding that petitioner is a resident of Ward No.19 and not a resident of Ward No.15 despite documentation having been provided by petitioner with regard to aforesaid. It is therefore submitted that material evidence on record has been ignored while passing the impugned order. 4. In the counter affidavit filed today, it has been stated that after selection of petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Worker, complaint was received that she is in fact a resident of Ward No.19 and not Ward No.15 for which advertisement has been issued and upon receipt of complaint, notice was issued to petitioner on 16.05.2025 whereafter she submitted her written submission but were not found substantive in nature. However the counter affidavit does not indicate any reason for rejection of written submissions which were filed by petitioner and also does not appear to advert 2 WRIA No. 7769 of 2025 to any of the document which were supplied.

5. Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration.

6. List this case on 04.09.2025, as fresh.

7. Until further orders of this Court, operation of impugned order dated 05.07.2025 shall remain stayed."

4. Elaborating upon his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to advertisement dated 21st March 2023, particularly paragraph 3 (Ka) (1) thereof to indicate that it is only in case of urban area that an applicant is required to be a resident of a particular ward but the said stipulation is not required in case the center advertised is of rural area, where the stipulation only is that the applicant should be a resident of the village concerned. He has thereafter drawn attention to the advertisement dated 26th September 2024, brought an affidavit as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit to submit that the center indicated in Gsuriganj has been advertised as rural with 43 posts of Anganwadi workers to be recruited upon.

5. It is thus submitted that once the opposite parties themselves have advertised the center concerned as a rural area, then, in terms of paragraph 3 of the government order dated 21st March 2023, the only stipulation required was for petitioner to be a resident of the village concerned and since it is undisputed that petitioner is a resident of the village concerned, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have cancelled her appointment.

6. Learned state counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has drawn attention to domicile certificate dated 13th October 2024 annexed as issue No.3 to the writ petition itself indicating petitioner to be a resident of Ward No. 19 of the village concerned. It is therefore submitted that it is in such circumstances that advertisement was issued for Ward No. 15 but the petitioner was found to be a resident of Ward No. 19 that the impugned order has been passed and does not warrant any interference.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the domicile certificate dated 13th October 2024, it is no doubt true that petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 19. Nonetheless the government order dated 21st March 2023, particularly paragraph 3 (ka) (1) clearly indicates as follows:- "3. चयन पा(cid:347)ता/अह(cid:259)ता हेतु (क) सव(cid:259)(cid:352)थम आंगनवा(cid:237)ी काय(cid:259)क(cid:347)ी के कु ल िर(cid:472) पद(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) 50 (cid:352)ितशत पद(cid:523) पर आंगनवाडी काय(cid:259)क(cid:347)ी के भत(cid:515) हेतु अपेि(cid:87)त अह(cid:259)ता पूण(cid:259) करने वाली आंगनवा(cid:237)ी सहाियका से चयन की काय(cid:259)वाही की जायेगी, िजसकी (cid:352)ि(cid:332)या िन(cid:286)नवत् होगीः- (1) सव(cid:259)(cid:352)थम अपेि(cid:87)त अहेता रखने वाली (cid:334)ामीण (cid:87)े(cid:347)(cid:523) म(cid:517) उसी (cid:334)ाम सभा तथा शहरी (cid:87)े(cid:347)(cid:523) म(cid:517) उसी वाड(cid:259) म(cid:517) 3 WRIA No. 7769 of 2025 ि(cid:293)थत उसी आंगनवा(cid:237)ी के (cid:281)(cid:349) की सहाियका, िजसकी (cid:281)यूनतम अह(cid:259)कारी सेवा िनधा(cid:259)िरत कट ऑफ 'डेट को 05 वष(cid:259) की िनयिमत सेवा पूरी हो चुकी हो तथा शैि(cid:87)क यो(cid:264)यता (cid:281)यूनतम इ(cid:276)टरमीिडएट उ(cid:485)ीण(cid:259) या समक(cid:87) हो एवं उसकी आयु 50 वष(cid:259) से अिधक न हो, का चयन िकया जाएगा। "

8. Upon consideration of the aforesaid aspect, it is thus evident that for a center advertised in a rural area, the applicant is required to be a resident of the village concerned and the aspect of applicant requiring to be a resident of the ward is applicable only in case the center advertised is in an urban area. The advertisement dated 26th September 2024 clearly indicates the center of Gauriganj being in a rural area.

9. In considered opinion of this court, in such circumstances, since the centre itself has been indicated as rural, the only stipulation required for petitioner was to be a resident of the village concerned with her being a resident of the ward being immaterial.

10. In such circumstances since petitioner admittedly is a resident of the village concerned, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have passed the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2025 which is accordingly quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Opposite parties are directed to permit petitioner to continue as Aganwadi worker for the centre concerned with all service benefits with effect from the date of appointment in pursuance of the selection dated 11th March, 2025.

11. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 27, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Jauhari learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 3rd July 2025, whereby her appointment as Anganwadi worker in the center being Asaidapur has been cancelled.

3. Earlier on 14th August 2025, following the order had been passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties. 1A. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. It has been submitted that by means of impugned order dated 05.07.2025, petitioner's selection as Anganbadi worker in the Centre for Asaidapur Ward No.15 has been cancelled on the ground that a complaint had been received that she in fact is a resident of Ward no.19 and not Ward No.15 and therefore could not have been appointed in terms of paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023.

3. It has been submitted that impugned order does not advert to any material to record a finding that petitioner is a resident of Ward No.19 and not a resident of Ward No.15 despite documentation having been provided by petitioner with regard to aforesaid. It is therefore submitted that material evidence on record has been ignored while passing the impugned order. 4. In the counter affidavit filed today, it has been stated that after selection of petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Worker, complaint was received that she is in fact a resident of Ward No.19 and not Ward No.15 for which advertisement has been issued and upon receipt of complaint, notice was issued to petitioner on 16.05.2025 whereafter she submitted her written submission but were not found substantive in nature. However the counter affidavit does not indicate any reason for rejection of written submissions which were filed by petitioner and also does not appear to advert 2 WRIA No. 7769 of 2025 to any of the document which were supplied.

5. Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration.

6. List this case on 04.09.2025, as fresh.

7. Until further orders of this Court, operation of impugned order dated 05.07.2025 shall remain stayed."

4. Elaborating upon his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to advertisement dated 21st March 2023, particularly paragraph 3 (Ka) (1) thereof to indicate that it is only in case of urban area that an applicant is required to be a resident of a particular ward but the said stipulation is not required in case the center advertised is of rural area, where the stipulation only is that the applicant should be a resident of the village concerned. He has thereafter drawn attention to the advertisement dated 26th September 2024, brought an affidavit as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit to submit that the center indicated in Gsuriganj has been advertised as rural with 43 posts of Anganwadi workers to be recruited upon.

5. It is thus submitted that once the opposite parties themselves have advertised the center concerned as a rural area, then, in terms of paragraph 3 of the government order dated 21st March 2023, the only stipulation required was for petitioner to be a resident of the village concerned and since it is undisputed that petitioner is a resident of the village concerned, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have cancelled her appointment.

6. Learned state counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has drawn attention to domicile certificate dated 13th October 2024 annexed as issue No.3 to the writ petition itself indicating petitioner to be a resident of Ward No. 19 of the village concerned. It is therefore submitted that it is in such circumstances that advertisement was issued for Ward No. 15 but the petitioner was found to be a resident of Ward No. 19 that the impugned order has been passed and does not warrant any interference.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the domicile certificate dated 13th October 2024, it is no doubt true that petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 19. Nonetheless the government order dated 21st March 2023, particularly paragraph 3 (ka) (1) clearly indicates as follows:- "3. चयन पा(cid:347)ता/अह(cid:259)ता हेतु (क) सव(cid:259)(cid:352)थम आंगनवा(cid:237)ी काय(cid:259)क(cid:347)ी के कु ल िर(cid:472) पद(cid:523) के सापे(cid:87) 50 (cid:352)ितशत पद(cid:523) पर आंगनवाडी काय(cid:259)क(cid:347)ी के भत(cid:515) हेतु अपेि(cid:87)त अह(cid:259)ता पूण(cid:259) करने वाली आंगनवा(cid:237)ी सहाियका से चयन की काय(cid:259)वाही की जायेगी, िजसकी (cid:352)ि(cid:332)या िन(cid:286)नवत् होगीः- (1) सव(cid:259)(cid:352)थम अपेि(cid:87)त अहेता रखने वाली (cid:334)ामीण (cid:87)े(cid:347)(cid:523) म(cid:517) उसी (cid:334)ाम सभा तथा शहरी (cid:87)े(cid:347)(cid:523) म(cid:517) उसी वाड(cid:259) म(cid:517) 3 WRIA No. 7769 of 2025 ि(cid:293)थत उसी आंगनवा(cid:237)ी के (cid:281)(cid:349) की सहाियका, िजसकी (cid:281)यूनतम अह(cid:259)कारी सेवा िनधा(cid:259)िरत कट ऑफ 'डेट को 05 वष(cid:259) की िनयिमत सेवा पूरी हो चुकी हो तथा शैि(cid:87)क यो(cid:264)यता (cid:281)यूनतम इ(cid:276)टरमीिडएट उ(cid:485)ीण(cid:259) या समक(cid:87) हो एवं उसकी आयु 50 वष(cid:259) से अिधक न हो, का चयन िकया जाएगा। "

8. Upon consideration of the aforesaid aspect, it is thus evident that for a center advertised in a rural area, the applicant is required to be a resident of the village concerned and the aspect of applicant requiring to be a resident of the ward is applicable only in case the center advertised is in an urban area. The advertisement dated 26th September 2024 clearly indicates the center of Gauriganj being in a rural area.

9. In considered opinion of this court, in such circumstances, since the centre itself has been indicated as rural, the only stipulation required for petitioner was to be a resident of the village concerned with her being a resident of the ward being immaterial.

10. In such circumstances since petitioner admittedly is a resident of the village concerned, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have passed the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2025 which is accordingly quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Opposite parties are directed to permit petitioner to continue as Aganwadi worker for the centre concerned with all service benefits with effect from the date of appointment in pursuance of the selection dated 11th March, 2025.

11. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 27, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench