WP(C) 3944/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. BK Sharma, learned counsel, for the respondents No.1 to 3. By making this writ application, under Article 226, the petitioner, who had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Geruati Angwanwadi Center, Nagao n, has put to challenge the order, dated 27.05.2011, passed by the respondent No .2, namely, Director of Social Welfare, Govt. of Assam. By order, dated 27.05.20 11, which stands impugned in this writ petition, respondent No.2 has held that t he petitioner is not eligible for appointment on two grounds, namely, (i) that t he petitioner had secured 30% marks in HSLC examination and (ii) that she does n ot belong to the area, where the concerned Angwanwadi Center is located. It is contended by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the p etitioner had secured 41% marks in HSLC examination, but respondent No.2 has wro ngly recorded that the petitioner had secured 30% marks in the HSLC examination. This shows, according to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, tha t respondent No.2 has not applied his mind to the facts of the case at hand corr ectly. Even if, for a moment, it is assumed that what is contended by the petitioner is correct that the petitioner had secured 41% marks in the HSLC examination, this contention will not make the petitioner eligible for appointment as Anganwadi w orker in respect of Geruati Anganwadi Center unless she belongs to, and hails fr om, the locality, where the Anganwadi Center is situated. In this regard, the fi nding of the respondent No.2, as already indicated above, is that the petitioner does not belong to the area, where the concerned Anganwadi Center is located. T his finding is a finding of fact and correctness of this finding requires making of roving enquiry and recording of evidence as well, which is, in a case of pre sent nature, neither feasible nor warranted. In no case, therefore, remedy, unde r Article 226, is the appropriate remedy, which the petitioner has taken recours e to. The remedy, if any, of the petitioner lies in instituting appropriate civi l suit seeking declaration of her eligibility so far as, at least, the question as to whether she belongs to the area, in question, is concerned. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this writ petition is not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed with liberty given to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law. No order as to costs.