WP(C) 4299/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel rep resenting the Respondents No.5 to 92. I have also heard Ms R. Chakraborty, lear ned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate representing the State respondents. The writ petition has been filed by 11 (eleven) petitioners alleging vio lation of the survey report for establishment of Anganwadi Centres, which are t o be manned by Angwadi Workers and Helpers. Be it stated here that pursuant to the establishment of various Anganwadi Centres in the particular area, a selecti on process was initiated and completed for appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Help ers in the said newly created centers. However, in terms of the interim order p assed by this Court dated 8.10.2009, no appointments could be made. Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioners, upon a reference to the survey report forwarded to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam by the Ch ild Development Project Officer of the particular project (Fekamari ICDS Project ), submits that the Anganwadi Centres ought to have been established in referen ce to the said survey report forwarded vide Annexure-1 letter dated 29.12.2008. According to him, the Anganwadi Centres have been established as per the whims a nd caprices of the local M.L.A. Be it stated here that the said local MLA is no t a party respondent to this proceeding. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4 as well as private respondents No.5 to 92, they have justified establishment of the Anganwadi Ce ntres and the selection conducted for filling up the posts of Anganwadi Workers /Helpers in the said centers. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by t he Respondent No.4, it has been stated that the C.D.P.O. on 29.12.2008 submitte d the information of database on villages/habitations before the concerned autho rities for sanctioning the additional Anganwadi Centres after observing all form alities. In paragraph 11 of the same affidavit, it has been stated that the pe titioners named therein were entitled to apply for the aforesaid appointments o f Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in the Anganwadi Centres mentioned in the said para graph. The task of establishment of Anganwadi Centres including the additional centers is on the authority entrusted with the job. It is not for the writ Cour t to decide as to in which location, the Anganwadi Centres are to be established . If the petitioners are aggrieved by establishment of the Anganwadi Centres, t hey are entitled to agitate their grievance by approaching the appropriate autho rities. On perusal of the writ petition, it is not discernible as to whether the petitioners made such approach to the authorities. No copy of any representatio n has been annexed. On perusal of the writ petition, no averment is found that any such person was made. There are also no definite averments that because of t he creation of the Anganwadi Centres in the particular manner, the petitioners h ave been deprived of participation in the selection process for the appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is really not possible for the writ Court to accede to the prayer made in the writ petition exercising its power of judic ial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The disputed questio n of fact narrated in the writ petition cannot be gone into in exercising writ jurisdiction. For all the aforesaid reasons, while not interferring with the impugned decision of the respondents, it is kept open for the petitioners to approach the departmental authorities agitating their grievance, if any. Writ petition stands disposed of.