WP(C) 3575/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Also heard Mr. Handique, le arned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. None appears for the respondent No. 7. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the selection and engage ment of the respondent No. 7 as Anganwadi worker in Thekaraguri, Anganwadi Centr e, Tingkhong in the district of Dibrugarh on the ground that though she was sele cted she has not been appointed on the basis of a purported enquiry conducted su bsequent to her selection relating to the allegation that she is a regular stude nt of a college. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the certificate dated 24.1.2 011 issued by the Principal of Moran Mahila Maha Vidyalaya has submitted that th ough the petitioner has passed the HSSLC examination in the year 2009 she could not pursue her further studies due to her financial condition and as such it not a fact that the petitioner is a regular student of Moran Mahila Maha Vidyalaya. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the basis on which the petitioner has been disqualified is non existent. The learned standing counsel, Social Welfare Department on the other hand placin g reliance on the affidavit in opposition as well as the additional affidavit fi led by the respondents has submitted that thought the petitioner was selected fo r engagement as anganwadi worker in the aforesaid centre an enquiry was conducte d on receipt of a complaint wherefrom it was found that the petitioner is a regu lar student of Moran Maha Vidyalaya in TDC first year bearing Roll No. 93 of the year 2009 i.e. at the time when the selection was conducted. It has also been s ubmitted that one of the conditions in the advertisement was that a regular stud ent cannot be considered for selection and engagement as anganwadi worker and as such the petitioner despite her selection could not be engaged and instead the person who was at serial No. 2 namely the respondent No. 7 was engaged as anganw adi worker. It appears from the enquiry report dated 26.3.2010, which is made available, sub mitted by the SDO that the enquiry was conducted as to whether the petitioner wa s a regular student at the relevant point of time. In that enquiry it was found that the petitioner was a student of TDC first year having Roll No. 93 in the ye ar 2009 in Moran Mahila Maha Vidyalaya. The certificate which has been annexed t o the affidavit-in-reply and on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance i.e. the certificate dated 24.1.2011 issued by the Principal of the said college does not speak as to whether the petitioner was a regular stud ent in the year 2009 in TDC after passing HSSLC examination. What has been certi fied is that though the petitioner has passed HSSLC examination she could not pu rsue higher studies due to financial condition. It is also the case of the petit ioner that though she took admission in TDC she subsequently left her studies. T he certificate issued by the Principal on the aforesaid stand taken by the petit ioner cannot be believed as the Principal for the reason best known to him did n ot disclose that the petitioner was admitted in TDC first year. Having regard to the aforesaid fact that has come out during enquiry that the pe titioner at the relevant point of time was a regular student of TDC first year i n the aforesaid college no illegality can be found in not engaging the petitione r as anganwadi worker and in engaging the respondent No. 7 in her place when the re is a specific bar in engaging a regular student as anganwadi worker. That being the position I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.