JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. M R Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SR Baruah, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 6 is represented by Mr. D Gogoi who appears on behalf of Mr. S Borthakur. 2. The respondent No. 5 has filed affidavit-in-opposition against the writ petitioner on 10.5.2010. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 submits that an affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 6 was filed in the year 2013. However, upon perusal of the records, I do not find any affidavit on record. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the controversy, the writ petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.5 floated an Advertisement on 7.9.2007 for inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi Health Workers in the Atigaon Anganwadi Centre under the Raha ICDS Project, Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and according to her assessment, she performed fairly well in the interview and was expecting to be appointed as Anganwadi worker. However, to her surprise, respondent No. 6 who was an outsider was appointed as Anganwadi worker for Atigaon Anganwadi Centre. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. MR Adhikari submits that the petitioner is qualified and eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi worker of the Atigaon Anganwadi Centre since she is a permanent resident of the area concerned whereas the private respondents belongs to Singhgaon village under the Chaparmukh Revenue circle and she resides under the Singhgaon Anganwadi Centre and Gormari Anganwadi Centre and therefore she could not have been appointed as Anganwadi worker for the Atigaon Anganwadi centre. 5. In response to the writ petition, the respondent No. 5 i.e. the CDPO Raha ICDS project has filed an affidavit-in-opposition whereby it has been contended that as per the selection that was undertaken, the petitioner failed to secure the top position in the merit list and therefore respondent No. 6 who secured the highest marks was appointed as Anganwadi Worker for the Atigaon Anganwadi Centre. As for the residency of the respondent No.6, the Gaon Bura of the Chaparmukh Town had issued a Permanent Resident Certificate in favour of the respondent No.6 certifying that she is a resident of Atigaon village and is a permanent inhabitant of Atigaon Anganwadi Centre area. In that view of the matter, there is nothing wrong in the appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker for Atigaon Anganwadi Centre. 6. Considering the submissions made by the rival parties and their respective claims with regard to the residency of the respondent No.6, I find that the same may not be possible to be resolved by exchange of affidavits. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director of Social Welfare Department to look into the matter for verification of the residency of the respondent No.6. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to cause verification about the residency of the respondent No.6. The respondent No.2 shall make such verification and afford opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 6 in making such verification. Such verification shall be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that on such verification, if it is found that respondent No.6 is not a resident of Atigaon Anganwadi Centre, the appointment of respondent No. 6 would have to give way to the next candidate/applicant in the merit list that was drawn up at the relevant time. On the other hand, if respondent No. 6 is found to be a resident of Atigaon, her appointment as Anganwadi Worker for the Atigaon Anganwadi Centre shall not be disturbed. 8. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of.