WP(C) 1004/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. O.P. Sunar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as we ll as Mr. J. Singh (Jr), learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. 2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Anganwadi Worker for Raigaon Anganw adi Centre in the District of Tinisukia, is aggrieved by cancellation of her app ointment vide the Annexure-D letter dated 21.1.2010. She was appointed by order dated 17.12.2009 and thus, almost one month thereafter, the appointment order wa s cancelled. 3. Although the petitioner claims violation of principles of natural justic e on the ground of dispensation of her service against a post of Anganwadi Worke r but she was not holder of any post. Anganwadi Workers are appointed as honorar y worker under the Integrated Child Development Project and they are engaged as Social Worker on monthly honorarium. Thus, the principles attracted towards disp ensation of service of a person holding a civil post, are not applicable in the case of dis-engagement of such Social workers. 4. The Anganwadi Centre in question falls in Ward No.6 and as per the guide lines holding the field, the candidate will have to be a resident of the Anganwa di Centre. As per the own admission of the petitioner, she is a resident of Ward No. 7 and not Ward No. 6, in which the Anganwadi Centre is located. The petitio ner has placed reliance on Annexure-E certificate dated 7.9.2009 issued by the W ard Member of Hahkhati G.P., 7 No. Ward, in which it has been certified that she is a permanent resident of Ward No.7 and the Centre with which this proceeding is concerned, is located in another area and that her residence is nearby and / or close to the Centre. Thus, this certificate itself will go to show that the p etitioner is not a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area. 5. The petitioner has placed reliance on another certificate dated 24.1.201 0, purportedly issued by the Ward Member, Ward No. 6, Hahkhati G.P, by which it has been certified that the petitioner is not a resident of Ward No.6 but a resi dent of Ward No.7. However, the certificate further goes to say that 75% of the Anganwadi Centre is in Ward No.7 and remaining 25% in Ward No.6. According to th e certificate, the matters require enquiry. 6. Annexure-G is another certificate issued by the President, Hahkhati G.P. certifying that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Ward No.7 and that sh e is also a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area. 7. From the above, what is seen is that apart from the fact that the petiti oner herself has admitted in the writ petition that she is a resident of Ward No .7 as against the location of the Anganwadi Centre in Ward No.6, the certificate s on which the petitioner has placed reliance also suggest that she is not a res ident of Ward No.6. As regards distribution of area (75 : 25), there is inherent contradiction in the certificates and this Court exercising writ jurisdiction c annot make a roving enquiry. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been categoric ally stated that the petitioner being a resident of Ward No.7 and the Anganwadi Centre being located in Ward No.6, as per the guidelines, she cannot claim appoi ntment as Aganwadi Worker for a centre located in Ward No.6. The counter affidav it further speaks of making enquiry, etc to find out as to whether the petitione r belongs to the Anganwadi Centre or not. Upon such enquiry, it was found that the petitioner is not a resident of Ward No.6, in which the Anganwadi Centre is located but a resident of Ward No.7, a fact established from the own statement a nd documents of the petitioner. 9. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit has not been denie d by the petitioner by filling any affidavit-in-reply. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and a ccordingly, it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.