JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.8.2008 by which the writ petition filed by the Appellant for directing the authorities to appoint her as Anganwadi Worker has been dismissed and direction has been issued to the authorities to proceed with the fresh selection. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on competition of the selection process, the Appellant being on the top of the merit list had been offered the job and she accepted the same. Respondent No. 5 - Sajeda Bibi challenged the selection of the Appellant by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 11549 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2006 giving opportunity to Respondent No. 5 to file an application before the Director of Social Welfare, who was directed to look in to her grievance and pass necessary orders. 3. In pursuance of the said order, case of the parties was considered and after scrutiny of the record the Director came to the conclusion that there had been manipulation in the selection process and it had not been conducted fairly. Therefore, the Director of Social Welfare -respondent No. 2 cancelled the entire selection process and directed for a fresh selection. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed the writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order passed by Respondent No. 2 as well as the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of this Court are likely to be set aside being contrary to the evidence on record. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Respondent No. 2 examined the entire record and was satisfied that the selection had not been conducted fairly and there was manipulation in the record. The learned Single Judge has confirmed that finding. Therefore, the appeal does not require to be entertained. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The learned Single Judge has confirmed that finding. Therefore, the appeal does not require to be entertained. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Respondent No. 2, by order passed by this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No. 11549 of 2006, which was filed by Respondent No. 5, was directed to hold an enquiry and examine the record to find out as to whether there has been fair selection. Respondent No. 2 after scrutiny of the record came to the conclusion that the selection process was not fair. Learned Single Judge has also agreed with the said finding recorded by Respondent No. 2, after verifying the documents on record. 8. This is a question of fact determined by the statutory authority after examining the record. Judicial review is not warranted in such a case where the enquiry had been conducted by an authority under the statute in pursuance of the order of this Court, unless it is found that the finding of fact recorded by the authority is perverse or is not based on evidence or is contrary to the evidence on record. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has made an attempt to satisfy the Court that the selection has been done fairly and according to him, there is nothing wrong in case the Appellant who secured 47.4% marks in aggregate in her academic career had been awarded 75% marks in interview and Respondent No. 5 who had secured 51.1% in academic career had been given only 32.5% marks in interview, as marks have to be awarded as per the performance of the candidate in the interview and the Appellant should have done very well therein. However, he could not explain the reason of disparity in the marks awarded to Respondent No. 5 by four members of the interview Board. Nor he could give explanation how the Appellant could be awarded 100% marks in the interview by one of the members of the Board. 10. It is settled legal proposition that once the learned Single Judge refused to exercise his discretion agreeing with the finding of fact recorded by the statutory authority, the appellate Court should not interfere with the said judgment and order unless it is satisfied that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is arbitrary or unreasonable and the findings recorded therein are unwarranted. As Respondent No. 2 has reached the conclusion that the selection had not been done fairly, no interference is required. 11. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Babu Ram, Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. Antarim Zila Parishad, considered the scope of interference in writ appeals and held as under: A Court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below, if the discretion has been exercised in good faith after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed by irrelevant matters. It two views are possible on the question, then also the Court of appeal would not interfere, even though it may exercise discretion differently, were the case to come initially before it. The exercise of discretion should manifestly be wrong. 12. The case at hand is examined in the light of the said legal proposition. We do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. The Respondents are directed to have a fresh selection at the earliest. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed