WP(C) 676/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEB K SHARMA Heard Mr. S K Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. P Chakrabor ty, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department, Assam. This writ petition has been filed challenging the selection and appointm ent of the respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Worker for Centre No.2 Majergaon Pubpara (Main) Anganwadi Centre under the respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 could not have been selected as she is not a resident of th e particular Anganwadi Centre i.e. Majeergaon Pubpara. Denying the aforesaid claim of the petitioner the respondent No.4 has fi led counter-affidavit enclosing therewith the copy of the certificate furnished by the respondent No.5 to prove her residential status. As per the said certific ate issued by the jurisdictional Gaon Panchayat, the respondent No.5 is a reside nt of village Majergaon. It is on this ground learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since as per the said certificate also the respondent No.5 is not a resident of Majergaon Pubpara but a resident of Majergaon, she was not entitle d to get appointment in terms of the relevant guidelines. Annexure-2 is the advertisement dated 10.08.2009 pursuant to which, the selection was conducted. While laying down the eligibility criteria in the adver tisement, it was stated that the candidate should be a permanent resident of the concerned revenue village where the Anganwadi Centre is located. Mr. Roy, learn ed counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that if the same is taken into acco unt then the respondent No.5 was eligible to be a candidate as the village Majer gaon falls within the concerned revenue village. However, upon a reference to th e further clarification issued vide circular letter dated 04.09.2009 (Annexure- C to the Affidavit-in-reply) he submits that the same village having been subs tituted by the term area , unless a candidate is a resident of an area covered by the particular Anganwadi Centre, she is not eligible to offer her candidature . On the other hand, Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel submits that t he term area is a wider term and the petitioner cannot insist that the said te rm will only confine to a particular portion of the village. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. The respondent No.5 had offered her can didature in response to the advertisement dated 10.08.2009 in which one of the e ligibility criteria was that the candidate should be a permanent resident of the concerned revenue village. It is an admitted position that the respondent No.5 is a resident of the concerned Revenue village. However, the whole controversy is raised in view of the aforesaid circul ar letter dated 04.09.2009 by which the expression same village has been subst ituted by the expression area . According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 being not a resident of the area covered by Majergaon Pubpara, she was not eli gible to offer her candidature and consequently, could not have been selected fo r appointment as Anganwadi Worker. The aforesaid circular letter dated 04.09.2009 was issued in reference t o the letters under reference indicated in the said circular letter. In the circ ular letter there is no reference to the advertisement-dated 10.08.2009 in terms of which the respondent No.5 was eligible. As per the said advertisement the ca ndidate should be a permanent resident of the concerned Revenue village where th e Anganwadi Centre is located. Admittedly, the respondent No.5 fulfils the said criterion. Even if the circular letter dated 04.09.2009 is operated in this case , same being later in point of time than the advertisement dated 10.09.2009 layi ng down the eligible criteria cannot have any retrospective effect. Further as s ubmitted by Ms. P Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel the expression area is wide enough to cover the entire village to which the respondent No.5 belongs to . In view of the above, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner is not a resident of Majergaon Pubbpara, sh e is not entitled to get appointment as Anganwadi worker for the particular Anga nwadi Centre. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.