JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The controversy relates to appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika at Centre 64 in Ward No. 32 in Hazipur Nagar Parishad area. 3. The petitioner was appointed earlier which was questioned by respondent no. 8 leading to the District Magistrate holding that the petitioner had lesser marks than respondent no. 8 and therefore she could not be appointed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner has been dismissed. The authorities have relied upon a report of the District Programme Officer to hold that respondent no. 8 was a resident of Centre 64 in Ward No. 32 itself and since she had higher marks than the petitioner she has wrongly been denied appointment. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court to urge that from the Mapping Register it is apparent that respondent no. 8 may at best be a resident of Centre No. 65 in Ward No. 32. Therefore she may be entitled to appointment in that centre which may not necessitate setting aside of the petitioners appointment which relates to Centre 64. 5. Counsel for the State from the order of the District Magistrate and the appellate authority which considered the report of the District Programme Officer as also the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority submits that the petitioner never led out a specific challenge to the manner which is now sought to be urged to furnish materials that do not appear to have been placed before the original or appellate authority. 6. An order passed by the original authority or the appellate authority, questioned in a writ petition, has to be confined on the grounds raised before the authorities themselves. This Court will not interfere with the orders if the materials on which it is sought to be assailed do not appear to have been raised or at least do not appear to have been properly raised before the original or the appellate authority. From the discussions of the original authority and the appellate authority it appears that both of them based on the report of the District Programme Officer have proceeded to assume that both the petitioner and respondent no. 8 belonged to Centre 64 in Ward No. 32. From the discussions of the original authority and the appellate authority it appears that both of them based on the report of the District Programme Officer have proceeded to assume that both the petitioner and respondent no. 8 belonged to Centre 64 in Ward No. 32. The petitioner even in her memo of appeal or in the portion of the impugned order where her case has been considered, does not appear to have raised any challenge to the report of the District Programme Officer that respondent no. 8 was not a resident of Centre 64 through her husband or her father-in-law and that entries 45 and 46 in the Mapping Register with regard to the father-in-law and the husband of Respondent No. 8 related to Centre 65 and not Centre 64. 7. It would not be the jurisdiction of this Court to reappraise facts and arrive at a different conclusion especially when those facts do not appear to have been raised as noticed above before the original authority or the appellate authority. 8. This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order and therefore declines to entertain the writ application. 9. However, if the petitioner files an application before the appellate authority that the orders suffer from an error of record and prima facie demonstrates to that effect from the Government documents by annexing such documents as may be necessary this Court requires the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of such application after hearing all concerned including respondent no. 8. 10. It is made clear that if the appellate authority be satisfied in law and facts of an error in the order, refusal of this Court to entertain interference at this stage shall not fetter his powers in any manner. 11. The writ applicatidn stands disposed.