WP(C) 3260/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. I have also heard M r. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. Two fold grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the sele ction and appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Anganwadi Worker are that the p etitioner having not conformed to the requirement of educational qualification o f HSLC, she could not have been invited for selection and eventually selected an d secondly, she being a regular student of school at the time of selection was n ot eligible to respond to the advertisement. Both the aforesaid grounds have been denied by the respondent No . 4. The stand of the said respondent is that although for appointment as Anganw adi Worker in major Anagnwadi Center, the candidates are required to be HSLC pas sed, but for Mini Anganwadi Center, the educational qualification required is Cl ass-VIII passed. In this connection, the respondent No. 4 has placed reliance on Annexure-R/1 advertisement (Clause-5) in terms of which for Mini Anganwadi Work er posts, the educational qualification required is Class-VIII passed. As per the admit card annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, she was a student of Class-IX in the year 2003. The admit card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam is dated 21.8.2004. Thus, it is the stand of the respondent No. 4 that the selection being of 2009, she w as not a student of any school and was eligible to apply for the assignment. At this stage, Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner submi ts that it needs to be ascertained as to whether the Mulan Pukhuri (Kha) Anganwa di Center No. 35 is a Mini Anganwadi Center or not. The name of the center itsel f does not indicate about the status of the said center. According to the respondent No. 4, the center in question is a M ini Anganwadi Center. In absence of any affidavit-in-opposition filed by the off icial respondents, it is not discernible as to whether the center in question is a Mini Anganwadi Center. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to find out as to whether the center in q uestion is a Mini Anganwadi Center or not. Depending upon outcome of such proces s, further course of action shall be taken in the matter by the said authority. Writ petition is disposed of.