WP(C) 57/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. P Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sarma, le arned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Also heard Mr. Gho sh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Konwar, lea rned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. The petitioners, by the present petition, have challenged the selection and enga gement of the respondent No. 6 as anganwadi worker at No. 19 Burhi Gosani Anganw adi centre on the ground that the respondent No. 6 is not a local resident of th at locality though as per the guidelines laid down vide notification dated 31.8. 2007 the candidate must be a local woman residing in the same village whether th e anganwadi centre is located. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the order of en gagement of the respondent No. 6 needs to be interfered with in view of not havi ng the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the notification dated 31.8.2007. Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Social Welfare Department has on the other hand submitted that there is a dispute whether the respondent No. 6 is a residen t of the village where the anganwadi centre is located, which disputed question of fact may not be gone into by this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted that similar matter was disposed of by this Court in WP(C) No. 215/2010 (Chitrawali Patgiri & ors. Vs. State of Assam & ors., reporte d in 2011 (3) GLT 334 directing making an enquiry by the Director with the help of the district administration to find out the fact relating to the residency of the person concerned and as such the present petition may also be disposed of i n terms of the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.5.2011 passed in Chi trawali Patgiri (supra). Since the claim of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 6 is not a local resident where the anganwadi centre is situated, such disputed question cannot b e gone into in a writ proceeding in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 2 26 of the Constitution of India. However, if the respondent No. 6 does not have the eligibility criteria as stipu lated in the notification dated 31.8.2007 she cannot be selected and engaged as anganwadi worker. That being the position, I dispose of the present petition directing the Directo r of Social Welfare Department to make an enquiry relating to the residency of t he respondent No. 6 as well as the petitioners and whether they have satisfied t he eligibility criteria relating to the residency and pass a speaking order. The Director may also take the assistance of the district administration in determi ning such question of fact. It is needless to say that the petitioners and the respondent No. 6 shall be giv en the reasonable opportunity of being heard who may produce proof in support of their respective cases. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition to be produced by the petitioners before the D irector. The writ petition stands disposed of.