IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.143 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Satbir Singh -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Greesh Agnihotri, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of removal from service on the ground that though he belonged to general category, he was given appointment to a post reserved for backward class. It is undisputed that the appellant belongs to general category and that the advertisement was for a post reserved for backward class category. The appellant was appointed to the said post and continued to work for 26 years. The impugned order dated 25.8.2008 is to the effect that the recommendation for appointment was made on the understanding that the petitioner belonged to Backward class category. It came to notice later that the appointment was fraudulently captured by the appellant who belonged to general category. Show Cause Notice was given to the appellant and after considering his reply, it was held that the appellant never applied for the post meant for reserved category but managed to procure letter of appointment by impersonating himself to be person of the same name who belonged to Backward class category. Learned Single Judge LPA No.143 of 2010 (O&M) upheld the order of removal from service and directed that enquiry be held to find out the person responsible for wrongful induction of the appellant into government service. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that he did not make any misrepresentation. 4. We are unable to accept this submission. The fact remains that the appellant did not belong to the reserved category for which the post was advertised and selection made. The appellant was duly given opportunity of being heard by way of show cause notice. The appointment procured or made fraudulently in violation of law could be annulled and mere fact that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the appellant was being removed will not make qualitative difference to the said order. In view of admitted fact that the appellant belongs to the general category and the post for which he was appointed was for reserved backward class category, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge May 6, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 2