WP(C) 4041/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. D C Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitione r. Also heard Mr Mr. A C Buragohain, Additional Advocate General, Assam who appe ars for official respondents. The respondent No. 6, has not made her appearance. The selection of respondent No. 6 for the position of Anganwadi Worker for the Upar Pathori Namghar Anganbadi Center under Pakhimaria ICDS Proje ct, Nagaon District is put to challenge in the instant petition. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 6 Miss Manjula Phukan is not a resident within the locality of the concerned Anganbadi Center and has been selected for the sai d center, only because of the influence of her brother, who is the President of Deodhar Mandal Congress. Despite the issuance of notice and also advertisements issued in local newspaper s on Courts order about pendency of such cases, the respondent No. 6 has not mad e her appearance. It is also seen in the counter affidavit filed by the official r espondent that there is no denial to the contention made in the writ petition th at the respondent No. 6 is not a local resident and could not have been lawfully selected for being posted as Anganwadi Worker, of Upar Pathori Namghar Anganbad i Center, under the Pakhimaria ICDS Project of Nagaon District. In view of above, I find that the selection of the respondent No . 6 was not justified as she did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of being a local women, prescribed through the Govt. notification dated 12.03.2007 issue d by the Govt. of Assam. Accordingly, the recruitment of respondent No. 6 Miss Manjula Ph ukan as Anganwadi Worker of Upar Pathori Namghar Anganbadi Center is hereby inte rfered with. The State Authorities are now directed to make a fresh recruitme nt, for the Upar Pathori Namghar Anganbadi Center. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.