WP(C) 4467/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, also Mr. B.J. Ghos h, learned State Counsel. The petitioner is a contender for the post of Anganwadi Worker at the Ghanshimul i Pachim Chuba Centre No.145 under Dalgaon Sialmari ICDS project. She has allege d that the Respondent No.6 who is a minor and below 18 years of age has been all owed to participate in the related selection process in violation of the prescri bed norm to that effect. The petitioner therefore, seeks a direction to disquali fy the Respondent No.6. The petitioner’s plea, as above, is based on an averment made by her in Paragrap h - 7 in the writ petition to the effect that the Respondent No.6 is above 17 ye ars and below 18 years and that she is a college going student. According to th e petitioner as the age limits for a candidate to compete for the post involved is 18 years to 44 years, the candidature of the Respondent No.6 ought not to hav e been entertained by the State respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above. On being quer ried the learned counsel, on instructions has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of the same locality as the Respondent No.6, her house being about ‰ k m. from that of the latter. Apart from the fact that the Respondent No.6 being a college going student, per se would not assuredly signify that she is a minor as asserted by the petitioner , the averment to the above effect made by her also does not inspire the confide nce of this Court as a clinching testimony in support thereof, more particularly in absence of any contemporaneous document of persuasive probative worth. In the above view of the matter, considering the fact that the results of the se lection, viz-a-viz the above Anganwadi Worker have not yet been declared, this C ourt considers this petition to be prematured, as well as, not entertainable on facts and in law. It is, therefore rejected. No costs.