MC 1500/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA . Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Buzarba ruah, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.7 and 8, who are the appl icants in the instant petition. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned coun sel appearing for the writ petitioners/opposite parties and Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.159/2010. By this application, the applicants have prayed for vacation of the orde r dated 21.12.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5762/2009. By the said order , it has been provided that status quo as on the date of passing the order dated 21.12.2009, in respect of process of selection and appointment for the post of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers under Bajali ICDS Project, should be maintained. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the Respondents No.7 and 8 i.e. the applicants, who have been nominated as members of the Selection Boar d as social worker are not eligible to be the members of the Selection Board. Ac cording to the writ petitioners, the Respondent No.7 being a member of the town committee is not entitled to be included as a member in the capacity of a socia l worker. So far as the Respondent No.8 is concerned, the allegation is that he being not an inhabitant of the particular center/locality, cannot be nominated as a social worker member in the selection committee. In the application, the Respondents No.7 and 8 have denied the aforesaid stand of the writ petitioners. According to the copy of the Voter List enclose d to the application, the Respondent No.8 is a voter in the Patacharkuchi Legisl ative Assembly Constituency and is an inhabitant of the particular center. As re gards the Respondent No.8, it is the stand of the respondents that he is a tempo rary employee of Bajali Town Committee and has not disassociated himself from th e social activities. In the guidelines formulated for the purpose of selection, there is no d efinition of the term social worker . There is no indication that one must be inhabitant of the particular center/locality. Apart from the above, it has also been brought to the notice that in all such writ petitions where the allegations have been made regarding anomalies in conducting the selection, the order passed is that in the event of making any a ppointment, same will be subject to the further order to be passed in the writ p etition. In views of the above, the interim order dated 21.12.2009 stands vacated . It is provided that it will be open for the official respondents to proceed wi th the selection. However, in the event of finalization of the same and making a ny appointment pursuant to the selection, same will be subject to the further or der to be passed in the writ petition. The selection committee is reminded of its duties to be performed with t ransparency and fairplay in the matter of selection and not to be guided by any outside influence mortgaging their conscience. Misc. Case stands disposed of.