WP(C) 364/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K.SHARMA Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the selection and appointm ent of the respondent No. 4 as Anganwadi Worker. However, the appointment order has not been enclosed to the writ petition. No date has also been given as to wh en the respondent No. 4 was appointed. The only ground on which the writ petition has been filed is that the re spondent No. 4 could have been selected as she does not belong to the survey are a of the centre in question. Although according to the petitioner, the Anganwadi centre for which the selection was conducted is numbered as 83, but nothing is discernible from the materials furnished alongwith the writ petition that the pa rticular Anganwadi centre is numbered as 83. On perusal of the select list, what is seen is that while the respondent No. 4 was selected and her name was includ ed at serial No. 26, the petitioner was not selected and accordingly her name wa s not included. In the select list, the village to which the respondent No. 4 be longs to has been mentioned as Dhupuri No. II and the Anganwadi centre is Mandal & Char Para. Needless to say that Anganwadi centre may be comprised of two or m ore villages. Solely on the statement in the writ petition that the respondent N o. 4 is beyond the survey area without explaining as to what the expression sur vey area means, the writ court cannot make any roving enquiry as to the require ment of the selected candidate being a resident of the Anganwadi centre. As per the conditions of the advertisement, the applicant must be a local candidate of the centre. There is no whisper in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 i s not a local candidate and does not belong to the centre in question. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly it is dismissed.