ORDER : The petitioner has called into question the notification, dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure-M) issued by the respondent No.2 appointing the respondent No.4 as Anganawadi Karyakarte. She is also seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider her representation, dated 14.8.2012 (Annexure-P) for appointing her as the Anganawadi worker for Hampapur Village. 2. Sri Karthik A. Bhargav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Hampapur, Kodlipet Hobli, Somvarpet Taluk, whereas the respondent No.4 is a resident of Kelakodli Village, Kodlipet Post. He submits that as per the notification, dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure-E), the applicant for the post in question has to be a localite, that is she has to be a resident of Hampapur. He brings to my notice the residential certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Somvarpet Taluk (Annexure-D1), which shows that she is residing in Kelakodli (Hampapur) and that therefore she ought to have been appointed as the Anganawadi worker for Hampapur. 3. Sri M.A. Subramani, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the voters’ list (Annexure – R2) shows that the petitioner is a resident of Doddakodli Village. He also brings to my notice the certificate (Annexure – R6) issued by the Village Accountant of Doddakodli Village. The said certificate states that in Kodlipet Hobli, Kelakodli is the main Village and that Hampapur and Arakanahalli Villages are the sub-villages. 4. Sri B.Y. Karthik, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner is married to one Sri Kumar even before the issuance of the advertisement for the appointment of the post in question. She has been residing with her husband and children at Navagrama, Doddakodli Village. In support of his submissions, he brings to my notice the voters’ list (Annexure – R8). He also brings to my notice the extract of the census record (Annexure – R9) to show that she is residing in Navagrama. 5. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. At the very outset, what cannot go unnoticed is the withholding of the petitioner’s marital status. In the cause title of the petition, she has described herself as the daughter of Devappa. It is not in dispute that she is married and the census record at Annexure – R9 contains a clear entry to that effect. At the very outset, what cannot go unnoticed is the withholding of the petitioner’s marital status. In the cause title of the petition, she has described herself as the daughter of Devappa. It is not in dispute that she is married and the census record at Annexure – R9 contains a clear entry to that effect. The documents, like voters’ list and the census record, which have come into existence at an undisputed point of time indicate that she is residing with her husband in Navagrama. I am not persuaded to give credence to the petitioner’s version that she lives in Hampapur. The possibility of her furnishing her father’s residential address, where she was residing prior to her marriage, cannot be ruled out. 6. The certificate (Annexure – R6) issued by the Village Accountant shows that Hampapur and Arakanahalli are the sub-Villages of Kelakodli Village. The clause that the applicant should be a localite can also be construed that he or she should be the resident of that Village or its abutting sub-village. 7. The materials placed on record do not show that the petitioner was eligible to apply for the post in question and that the respondent No.4 was not eligible to apply for it. I therefore decline to interfere in the matter. This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.