WP(C) 128/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B .K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the sele ction and appointment of the private respondents as Anganwadi Workers / Helpers in different Anganwadi Centres under Bhurbandha ICDS Project. According to the p etitioners, the private respondents being not the resident of the area of Anganw adi Centres, their candidatures ought not have been accepted and consequently wo uld not have been selected for appointment as Anganwadi Workers / Helpers. In th e writ petition, the petitioners have annexed certain documents to show that the private respondents are not the residents / inhabitants of the area of operatio n of the Anganwadi Centres. On the other hand, the counter affidavit filed by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), it has been specifically stated that the private respond ents are the residents of the Anganwadi Centres and accordingly their candidatur es had been accepted. In support of such contentions, the respondents in their a ffidavit have also enclosed the certificates issued by the authorities in favour of the private respondents. It is the stand in the affidavit that normally suc h certificates issued by the authorities are taken into account to determine the residential status of the candidates. In the affidavit, the respondents have also stated that they have not re ceived any complaint regarding residential status of the private respondents. In addition to the above, Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Soci al Welfare Department, has produced the relevant records containing the certific ates issued in favour of the private respondents. He submits that the records ha ve revealed that all the private respondents are the residents of the respective Anganwadi Centres and thus there is no question of setting aside their selectio n. The Writ Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Cons titution of India cannot make any roving enquiry so as to find out that the pet itioners and the private respondents are the residents of the area of operation of the respective Anganwadi Centres. There is claim and counter claim that the p etitioners are aggrieved by the selection of the private respondents on the grou nd that they are not the residents of the area of operation of the Anganwadi Cen tres. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the appointment of the private respond ents, it will be open for them to approach the departmental authorities by appro priate representations. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is dispose d of, without however, any order as to costs.