Allahabad High Court
Renu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53042
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 10187 of 2025
Renu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Prashant Tiwari, Hariom Divedi, Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 8
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.08.2025 to the extent it directs issuance of fresh advertisement for recruitment on the post of Aganbadi Worker in the village concerned. Further prayer for appointing petitioner on the said post has also been sought in pursuance to advertisement dated 14.11.2024.
3. Since reasons for rejection of petitioner's representation are evident in the impugned order itself, counter affidavit is being dispensed with and the petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself.
4. It has been submitted that in pursuance of advertisement issued on 14.11.2024, petitioner had applied for the post of Aganbadi Worker in the village concerned and was admittedly placed at Serial no.2 in the merit list. It is submitted that subsequently after issuance of appointment to Smt. Tasleema Khatoon, the person who was placed first in the merit list, objections were raised with regard to the Income Certificate of the selected candidate and upon inquiry, the same was cancelled vide order dated 05.11.2024.
5. It is submitted that since admittedly petitioner was placed at Serial no.2 in the merit list, it was her vested right to be offered appointment on the said post in terms of paragraph-11 (v) of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023. It is also submitted that since the appointment of selected candidate was declared to be void, it would not indicate a fresh vacancy and would in fact require the opposite parties to appoint the next selected candidate i.e. petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar versus Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 1059 (S/B) of 2001.
7. Although learned State Counsel has not been provided any instructions but submits that the impugned order has been passed in terms of paragraph-11(v) of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 which clearly requires fresh recruitment to take place on the vacancy so created.
8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that in pursuance of advertisement, Smt. Tasleema Khatoon was placed first in the select list with petitioner being placed second. It is also evident from the impugned order that subsequently appointment of Smt. Tasleema Khatoon was cancelled on account of her Income Certificate being found to be forged.
9. Paragraph-11 (v) of the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 makes it evident that a merit list is required to be prepared for purposes of recruitment on the post of Aganbadi Worker and it also provides that in case the selected candidate fails to join, offer of appointment shall be provided to the second placed person in the merit list. The provision also subsequently provides that in case of any vacancy left over, the same shall be filled by means of fresh recruitment.
10. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates the aspect of preparation of a select list of at least two selected persons. The very purpose of preparation of such a select list would become redundant in case the second placed person is not offered appointment owing to the selected candidate not joining on the post. It is also evident that a complete exercise is undertaken for recruitment on the said post which would also come to naught in case a fresh exercise is undertaken and would also hamper smooth functioning of Aganbadi centres.
11. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra) has also indicated a distinction between a vacancy arising due to the selected person being terminated or having resigned or not joined on the post on one hand and with appointment obtained on the basis of fake and forged documents. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
"10. As proposition of law, we are in agreement that once a person is appointed on a post, his subsequent termination or resignation, causing vacancy will not be treated to be the same vacancy for which earlier recruitment was made and such vacancy cannot be filled in from merit/waiting list prepared in earlier selection. Termination or resignation would result in a new vacancy and for that purpose a fresh process of selection has to be undergone.
11. But such proposition will apply only when a valid appointment is made by the authorities concerned. In the present case, Sher Bahadur Singh submitted a fake and forged document and on that basis, procured appointment. Forgery vitiates everything. Therefore, appointment of Sher Bahadur Singh was a nullity and void ab initio. It was no appointment in the eyes of law It is for this reason, when authorities found that documents submitted by Sher Bahadur Singh, i.e. High School Certificate was forged and fake, they canceled his appointment, which attained finality. So, here is not a case where any new vacancy has arisen due to termination or resignation by appointee, but here is a case where a person procured appointment by plying fraud and when authorities came to know and detected such fraud, they cancelled appointment itself. The appointment being void ab-initio and nullity, result would be as if there was no appointment in the aforesaid vacancy. Hence, the same vacancy would be available to the next person in merit list, since he would be treated to be first person in merit list, after excluding the person who played fraud i.e. Sher Bahadur Singh. It is not in dispute that next person was Harbans Singh, therefore, in our view, he was rightly appointed and proposition of law canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner will not apply to the facts of present case."
12. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that appointment of the selected candidate has been cancelled on account of having been obtained on the basis of forged document. As such the appointment would definitely be null and void ab initio and therefore, would not come within realm of a fresh vacancy requiring fresh advertisement.
13. In view thereof, the reasoning indicated in the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 for issuance of fresh advertisement for recruitment on the vacant post of Aganbadi Worker at the center concerned being unsustainable is quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties no. 3 & 6 collectively to consider petitioner's case for appointment in the light of aforesaid judgment as well as in terms of paragraph 11 (v) of the Government Order dated 21.03.2025.
14. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is submitted before the concerned authority.
15. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.
(Manish Mathur,J.) September 4, 2025 Satish