IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17221 of 2005 Date of Decision: 30.4.2009. Parminder Kaur --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. G.K. Saini, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for respondents no.5 & 6. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was recommended for appointment as Aanganwari Worker at village Balsuan, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala. However, later her appointment was withheld in view of the resolution adopted by the Panchayat recommending that the petitioner has left the village and is living with her husband at Nabha. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the CDPO, Rajpura himself visited the house of the petitioner and found the truth and it was revealed that the petitioner is staying with her husband at Nabha. Even the CDPO, Rajpura also visited the mother-in-law of the petitioner and it was reported that the petitioner is residing with her husband at Nabha. On account of the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner was denied the appointment and the private respondent no.7 has been appointed. CWP. No. 17221 of 2005 -2- The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the appointment of respondent no.7 on the grounds that the petitioner continue to reside in village Balsuan. The petitioner has relied upon the Ration Card (Annexure P-3) and Voter List (Annexure P-4). In view of the above circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that an enquiry be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala with regard to the residence of the petitioner. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to hold an enquiry regarding the actual residence of the petitioner by affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also the respondent no.7 and pass the consequential order within a period of three months from the date of service of certified copy of this order. Till then the status quo as exists today shall continue. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 30.4.2009 lucky