WP(C) 5743/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. N Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. BK Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Heard also Ms. T Barman, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. The basic challenge, in the writ petition, to the selection of responden t No.5, namely, Smti Rina Roy, as Anganwadi worker for No. 73, Nadiapur (East) A nganwadi Centre, is that the said centre is located in an area, where the popula tion of Scheduled Caste is more than 40% of the total population, and as per the relevant guidelines, an Anganwadi Centre located at a place, where the Schedule d Caste, Scheduled Tribes or Tea Tribe population is more than 40% of the total population, selection should be made from that Caste/Tribe having more than 40% and the list should be placed at the time of interview, so that selection can be made giving priority to that Caste/Tribe. The State respondents, with the help of their affidavit-in-opposition, dispute t hat the place, where the Anganwadi centre is located, is a place, where more tha n 40% population of the total population is of Scheduled Caste. This factual ass ertion of the State respondents may or may not be correct. The question, however , remains as to whether Nadiapur (East) Centre No. 73 is or is not located in an area, where more than 40% of the total population is Scheduled Caste as alleged by the petitioner and this question remains disputed question of fact. A writ p roceeding, such as, the present one, is not the appropriate proceeding for decid ing such a disputed question of fact. The remedy of the petitioner, therefore, l ies in instituting appropriate suit, where the writ petitioner can give evidence in support of his pleading that the place, in question, has Scheduled Caste pop ulation of more than 40% of the total population. Situated thus, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, this writ petition is not maintainable. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not a dmitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. Before parting with this writ petition, it is, however, made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition shall have no bearing if any such civil suit is instituted by seeking such reliefs as he has claimed in this writ petition.