WP(C) 5724/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. S armah, learned Standing counsel, SWD. I have also heard Mr. S. Chokraborty, lea rned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. The matter pertains to selection and appointment of Ananwadi Worker in t he centre called No. 1 Kaki Adarsha Anganwadi Centre. According to the petitione r, there is certain irregularities in conducting the selection for which she ha d approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4729/2009. The writ petition was d isposed of on 11.11.2009 alongwith two other writ petitions recording the submis sion of the learned State counsel that steps had been taken to remove the anomal ies. In the order it was recorded that the Govt. had taken requisite steps to en sure that no illegality took place and undeserved appointments were made. After the aforesaid order the respondent No. 6 having been appointed, th e petitioner once again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petiti on contending that although an undertaking was furnished to the Court that steps were taken to remove the defects, but the respondents without removing the defe cts in the selection appointed the same very respondent No. 6 against whom there was allegations. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner is presently serving as Anganwadi Helper in Bengena A ti AWC and her residence is at Telia Ati. Thus, the petitioner belongs to anothe r Anangwadi Centre under Udali ICDS Project. The respondents have further stated that the distance between the two centres is 4 kms. As regards the allegation of anomalies in the selection, the respondents have contended that when certain irregularities were found the CDPO who had con ducted the selection was placed under suspension. However, later on he was reins tated in service when the purported irregularities were found not correct. There after, the said CDPO completed the aforesaid selection and the respondent No. 6 having been found suitable for the said post, has been appointed. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that as agai nst 46.66 marks obtained by the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 obtained 54.10 marks and occupied the 1st position in the merit list. The aforesaid pleas raised in the counter affidavit has not been denie d by the petitioner by filing any affidavit in reply. If the petitioner has alr eady been appointed as Anganwadi Helper in another centre, there is no question for her to claim appointment as Anganwadi Helper in the centre in respect of whi ch this proceeding is concerned. As per the adopted guidelines, a candidate will have to be a resident of the particular Anganwadi centre area which the petitio ner admittedly is not, she having already been appointed as Anganwadi Helper in another centre. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accord ingly, the writ petition is dismissed.