ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Aanganwari Sewika. 2. The main ground taken by the petitioner, in her writ application, is that, no Aam Sabha was held and respondent No. 5 has been appointed illegally. Further ground taken by the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 is more than 40 years of age, on the date of appointment, which is against the provision of Rules for such appointment. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties. 4. From the record, I find that the minutes of the Aam Sabha has been brought on record by the State as well as by respondent No. 5. The said document, suggests, that Aam Sabha was held on 11.11.2006 and Aam Sabha recommended to appoint respondent No. 5 as Aanganwari Sewika. 5. Further, so far as the dispute with regard to age is concerned, the petitioner is relying upon the voter list. A Voter list is not a document in proof of date of birth. The School Leaving Certificate of the daughter of respondent No. 5 was brought on record to show that respondent No. 5 is more than 40 years of age as in the said certificate, the date of birth of her daughter is 30.1.1987. I also find that respondent No. 5 has brought on record her own matriculation certificate, wherein, the date of birth of respondent No. 5 is mentioned as 1.1.1982. Thus there is factual dispute in respect of the date of birth of respondent No. 5. 6. Further the petitioner disputes about the meeting of Aam Sabha. The minutes of the said meeting has been brought on record by the counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 5. 7. From the rival submissions, I find that there is a serious dispute of facts, which cannot be looked into or decided in an application filed under Article 226 to the Constitution of India. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.