WP(C) 1842/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. BK Sarma, learned s tanding counsel, Social Welfare Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos.6 and 7, despite service of notice. The petitioners, who were the candidates for selection for engagement of Anganwa di Helpers in No.387 Katagarah L.P. School and No.388 Katahguri Kali Mandir Anga nwadi Centres, by the present petition have challenged the selection and engagem ent of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Anganwadi Helpers in the aforesaid Centres respectively, basically on the ground that the respondent No.6 being a regular s tudent of Falihamari Senior Madrassa and the respondent No.7 being not a residen t within the area in which the aforesaid No.388 Katahbari Kali Mandir Anganwadi Centre is situated, they cannot be selected and engaged as such, in view of the conditions put in the advertisement dated 19th September, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since in the advertisement dated 19th September, 2009 there is clear stipulation that no regular student of any school or college and the person, who are not the resident in the area conc erned would be considered for selection and engagement, the engagement of the re spondent Nos.6 and 7 needs to be interfered with, they being the student and out sider, respectively. Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Social Welfare Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit-i n-opposition filed by the respondent No.5 has submitted that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were engaged as Anganwadi Helpers in the aforesaid Centres, as they were selected by the Selection Committee having found that they have fulfilled all t he eligibility criteria. It has also been submitted that the respondent No.7 wa s selected, keeping in view the fact that she belongs to the Schedule Caste comm unity of Assam. Mr. Sarma further submits that since a dispute, as aforesaid, h as been raised by the petitioners, it needs to be verified by the Director and a s such, the necessary orders may be passed in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the claim of the petitioners that the respondent No.6 is a regular student and the respondent No .7 is not from the locality in which the Anganwadi Centre situates, the same may be directed to be enquired into by the Director with a further direction to pas s necessary order thereafter. It appears from the employment notice dated 19th September, 2009 that a regular student of any school or college would not be considered for selection and engag ement as Anganwadi Helper. From the said advertisement, it appears that a candi date, who is not a resident of the area in which the Centre is situated, would n ot be considered for selection and engagement. In the instant case, since a dis pute has been raised by the petitioners to the effect that the respondent No.6 i s a regular student and the respondent No.7 is not the resident of the locality where the Centre exists, which dispute cannot conveniently be gone into in the p resent proceeding, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Director of So cial Welfare Department to decide the said question of fact after giving opportu nity to the petitioners and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to produce the necessary proof in support of their respective contentions and to pass a speaking order. It is needless to say that if the Director of Social Welfare Department requires taking the assistance of the District Administration, such assistance may be ta ken by him. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 2( two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed t oday alongwith the copy of the writ petition and its annexures appended thereto to be produced by any of the petitioners before the said authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.