WP(C) 1356/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.C. Borah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. I have also heard Mrs . T. Verma, learned counsel appearing for Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Couns el, Social Welfare Department. The matter relates to selection and appointment of Anganwadi Worker. Whi le according to the petitioner, she is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre and th us should have been given preference over the respondent No.5, who according to her is not a resident of the said Centre. It is the stand of the official respon dents as well as the respondent No.5 that she is a resident of the area of the p articular Anganwadi Centre. The Anganwadi Centre in question is Boramari Reserve Chuburi Centre No. 340. The petitioner has annexed two certificates to show that she is a resident of th e area covered by the said Centre and that the respondent No.5 is not. If we go by the Annexure-3 certificate dated 19.2.2010, the petitioner is a resident of v illage Boramari Gaon Reserve. As per Annexure-4 certificate dated 19.2.2010, she is a resident of nearer to the Centre and on the other hand the respondent No.5 is not a resident of the Anganwadi Centre. Thus, from both the certificate, it is not discernible as to whether the petitioner herself is a resident of Boramar i Reserve Chuburi Centre No. 340. As per her own showing through the aforesaid A nnexure-4 certificate, she is nearer to the Anganwadi Centre. Both the certifica tes are dated 19.2.2010 issued by the Gaon Bhura of Bolukajari Gaon. On the oth er hand, the selection was conducted in the year 2009, to be precise 26.12.2009. Thus, the whole basis of the case of the petitioner is the two certificate issu ed on 19.2.2010. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 4 & 5, it has been stated that the respondent No.5 is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre and thus there is no impediment towards her appointment. In this connection, Mr. Borah, learned c ounsel for the respondent No.5 has produced the related documents obtained throu gh RTI Act. On perusal of the said document, it appears that both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are resident of Boramari Village (Reserve). While the r espondent No.5 secured first position, the petitioner secured second position. In the writ petition, there is no statement about the residential status of the respondent No.5 except the statement that she is not a resident of the particula r Anganwadi Centre. In the address furnished in respect of both the incumbents i .e. the petitioner and the respondent No.5, it is shown to be Village Boramari G oan (Reserve) and village Boramari Goan respectively. On the basis of the aforesaid materials, it is difficult to hold that the respon dent No.5 is not a resident of the particular Anganwadi Centre. If the petitione r is still aggrieved, it will be open for her to pursue such other remedy as may be available in law. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judge ment and order dated 11.5.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 215/2010, by which it was pro vided that in case of such dispute, the Director of Social Welfare Department ma y resolve the same by offering reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 she has annexed the certi ficate to show that she is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of , without however, any order as to costs.