C.W.P.No. 18674 of 2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 18674 of 2009. DECIDED ON : 7.12.2009. Sunita Rani Petitioner. VERSUS State of Haryana and others. Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI,J. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Ward No. 6 situated at village Assandh. After her appointment, a complaint was received against the petitioner that she is not the resident of Ward No.6 of Village Assandh. The allegations contained in the complaint were got enquired into. The Tehsildar reported that in the application filed by the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwari, she is shown to be the resident C.W.P.No. 18674 of 2009. 2 of Ward No.15. It has been further reported that petitioner's Ration Card was originally for Ward No.6 but later on she got her ration card shifted to ward No. 6 by presenting wrong facts. On that basis, the appointment of the petitioner was made from Ward No.6. A notice dated 25.9.2009 was issued to the petitioner directing her to submit an explanation in this regard. She was even allowed an opportunity to appear in person on 26.10.2009 at 11 A.M., to explain her position. After hearing the petitioner, the authority below passed the order dated 30.10.2009, (Anneuxre P-7) impugned and cancelled her appointment as Anganwari worker from Ward No.6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, who has dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner after shifting from Ward No.15 to 6 got issued a ration card and thus she was resident of said Ward. It is a clear cut finding recorded by the Programme Officer that the petitioner had, in-fact, procured the Resident Certificate by showing herself to be the resident of Ward No.6 by misrepresentation. As a C.W.P.No. 18674 of 2009. 3 matter of fact, petitioner was resident of Ward No.15. The appointment was made on the basis of resident of the Ward. The petitioner has procured appointment by misrepresentation and it has been proved in the enquiry that she is not the resident of Ward No.6. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. 07.12.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI ) Anoop JUDGE