CWP No.1288/2008. 01.09.2008 Present: Mr K.C.Sankhyan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.J.K.Verma, Deputy A.G., for respondents No.1 to 4. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari worker and in pursuance of the same, she joined. However, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner alleging that the petitioner is not eligible and does not possess essential qualification. Therefore, the matter was scrutinized by the Deputy Commissioner and decided the matter against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Divisional Commissioner, who too dismissed her appeal. Hence, this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the two Courts below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner was living separately from the family along with her husband, who have no livelihood to earn before the cut of date i.e. 1.1.2004. The two Courts below appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not separated on the cut of date, referred to herein-above. The order is a reasoned order. We have examined that how far this Court under Article 226 can go and examine the evidence on record? We are of the considered opinion that we would not like to decide the matter of finding of fact which has already been scrutinized by the two Courts below. In light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the two Courts below are speaking …2… orders and have been passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, no interference is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending application. ( Jagdish Bhalla ), C.J. September 1, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)