JUDGMENT : - A.M. Sapre, J. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.5041/2012 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 08.04.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to grant the relief to the writ petitioner which she had claimed in the writ petition. So the short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? Facts of the case are simple and short. The dispute between the two private parties - both ladies -appellant (writ petitioner) and another lady – respondent No. 7 is in relation to their selection and appointment to the post of “Anganwadi Worker/Helper“ for the area called – “Khartolabori Nabajyot Sangha Anganwadi Centre No. 309” for which an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 4 and pursuant thereto, respondent No. 7 was selected and appointed whereas, the candidature of appellant was rejected. The appellant (writ petitioner) being aggrieved of her non-selection and the selection and appointment of respondent No. 7 questioned its legality and correctness by filing a writ petition out of which, this writ appeal arises. The challenge was essentially on the ground that since one of the requirements of advertisement was that candidate should be the resident of the same area for which post has been advertised, respondent No.7 was not able to fulfill the said criteria and hence her appointment to the post in question was bad in law. The writ court in the impugned order noticed that the writ petition out of which this appeal arose was the second round of litigation between the parties. In the earlier round of litigation (Writ Petition No. 685/2010 decided on 19.9.2009), the writ court had remanded the case to the Director for holding factual inquiry into the aspect as to whether respondent No.7’s residence falls in the area in question and after holding the factual inquiry, the Director returned a finding in respondent No. 7’s favour that she was a resident of the area in question. The appellant again challenged this finding in the writ petition out of which this writ appeal arises. The appellant again challenged this finding in the writ petition out of which this writ appeal arises. By impugned order, the writ court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and upheld the respondent No. 7’s appointment by accepting the finding of the Director. It was held and, in our view, rightly that finding of the Director on the issue being a finding of fact, it was binding on the writ court. We concur with the finding of the writ court. In our opinion, it is based on the factual finding of the Director recorded in the inquiry pursuant to writ court’s previous order. The writ court, in our opinion, could not go into factual the aspect again in its writ jurisdiction like an appellate court. It is for the reason that mere perusal of the Director’s report would indicate that it was based on relevant material collected for conducting the inquiry, which categorically recorded a finding in respondent No. 7’s favour on the issue of her residence, which was found at the same place for which the advertisement for the post in question was issued. To sustain the finding, in our view, the material collected was sufficient. Though learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) made attempt to find fault in the inquiry, but we are afraid, we can go into the same like an appellate court. It the writ court could not do so, a fortiori, the appellate court while hearing the appeal arising out of such writ court’s order too cannot do so. No other point was raised by the appellant except the one taken note of (supra) and with which we found no merit. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this writ appeal which thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.