WP(C) 4780/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Ms P Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sarma, learne d standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Also heard Mr. G hosh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. None appears for the respondent No. 8 despite service of notice. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the selection and engage ment of the respondent No. 8 as anganwadi worker at Ujani Ukhamati Shyamguri und er Bordoloni Block ICDS Project on the ground that the respondent No. 8 is not a local resident of that locality though as per the guidelines laid down vide not ification dated 19.9.2009 the candidate must be a local woman residing in the sa me village whether the anganwadi centre is located. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the order of eng agement of the respondent No. 8 needs to be interfered with in view of not havin g the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the notification dated 19.9.2009. Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Social Welfare Department has on the other hand submitted that there is a dispute whether the respondent No. 8 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 petitioner has also submitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.5.2011 passed in Chit rawali Patgiri (supra). Since the claim of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 8 is not a local r esident where the anganwadi centre is situated, such disputed question cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 22 6 of the Constitution of India. However, if the respondent No. 8 does not have the eligibility criteria as stipu lated in the notification dated 19.9.2009 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. 8 as well as the petitioner and whether they have satisfied th e eligibility criteria relating to the residency and pass a speaking order. The Director may also take the assistance of the district administration in determin ing such question of fact. It is needless to say that the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 shall be give n 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 o f 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 petitioner before the Dir ector. The writ petition stands disposed of.