JUDGMENT : Challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa as contained in Annexure P/17, with regard to appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta and dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition. By the aforesaid order, an order earlier passed by the Collector, Rewa in an appeal has been rejected and, therefore, this writ petition. Petitioner claims to be a domicile of village Khatkhari, Janpad Panchayat and Tehsil Hanumana, District Rewa. According to the petitioner, her name finds place in the supplementary voter list of Gram Panchayat Khatkhari, Block Hanumana for the year 2004. She is a 'chamar' by caste, a Scheduled Tribe person and has passed the High School Certificate Examination in the year 2005, and her name appears in the ration card issued in the name of her father, Late Sukhlal, in the year 2006 vide Annexure P/6. Petitioner was married to one Radhamohan Saket, resident of Post Panni, Tehsil Mouganj, District Rewa. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband has expired and after expiry of her husband she is staying in village Khatkhari with her parents. Petitioner and respondent No.7 applied for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta in Anganwadi Kendra, Ward No.10, Khatkhari, Janpad Panchayat Hanumana on 29.8.2007. Necessary certificates and documents were submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner she was eligible for appointment, but without considering her case properly appointment was not granted to her and instead respondent No.7 was appointed to the post. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner wrote to the Collector and the Collector directed for conducting enquiry. However, as nothing was done she filed an appeal under section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam before the Collector, Rewa challenging the appointment of respondent No.7. Collector, Rewa vide order-dated 27.11.2007 dismissed the appeal vide Annexure P/4, further revision filed before the Commissioner having also been dismissed by the impugned order-dated 23.9.2008 Annexure P/17, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Shri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking me through the documents and material available on record, argued that after death of petitioner's husband she was staying in village Khatkhari and ignoring these documents, appointment is denied which is unsustainable. 2. Shri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking me through the documents and material available on record, argued that after death of petitioner's husband she was staying in village Khatkhari and ignoring these documents, appointment is denied which is unsustainable. Contending that she is a widow, is more meritorious and is entitled to appointment as her name appears in the voter list Annexure P/2, the caste certificate Annexure P/3 indicates her to be a resident of the local village and as she is also issued a ration card vide Annexure P/5, wherein her name is included, it is stated that the respondents have committed error in denying her appointment on the ground that she is not living in the village. Accordingly, contending that the Collector and the Commissioner have recorded a perverse finding, which is unsustainable, petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. Respondents have filed reply and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, and Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.7, submit that the concurrent findings recorded by the Collector and the Commission in the orders impugned are findings of fact with regard to the residence of the petitioner and the said finding of fact does not warrant any interference. It is pointed out by Shri A.K. Mishra that the voter list Annexure P/2, the caste certificate Annexure P/3 and the ration card Annexure P/5 are of the years 2004 and 2005, much before the selection took place in the year 2007, invite my attention to the voter list and certificate issued in the year 2007, when the selection process took place and point out that petitioner's name is shown in the village where she is staying with her late husband's family, respondents resist the claim of the petitioner. 3. Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.7, invites my attention to the voter list available at page 18 of the return, and the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat available at page 69, to point out that respondent is not staying in the village and, therefore, in denying her appointment the Collector and the Commissioner have not committed any error. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the records it is clear that the only dispute involved in this writ petition is a factual dispute with regard to residence of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the records it is clear that the only dispute involved in this writ petition is a factual dispute with regard to residence of the petitioner. Admittedly, appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta can be granted only to a local resident. The documents filed by the petitioner are of the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 i.e... prior to the process of recruitment, which was held in the year 2007 and, therefore, the subsequent documents pertaining to marriage of the petitioner and her residence after marriage have to be taken note of The Collector and the Commissioner have considered all these documents and the finding recorded is that petitioner is not staying in the village in question, where the centre is situated and, therefore, in refusing appointment to her the authorities have not committed any error. The concurrent findings in this regard recorded by the Collector and the Commissioner is based on due appreciation of the material and evidence available on record and at this stage now, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am not inclined to interfere into the concurrent findings. 5. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised, the petition is dismissed.