IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.262 of 2010 UMAPATI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 11.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant in respect of limitation petition as well as on merit. In the facts of the case, the delay in preferring this appeal is fit to be condoned. Accordingly, the limitation petition is allowed. On merit it is found that while the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking her own appointment as Anganbari Sevika was pending, the Collector of Buxar District passed order whereby he set aside the selection and appointment of one Madhuri Devi, respondent No.7 and in view of his findings he issued a consequential direction for holding a fresh selection and for making fresh appointment on account of removal of Madhuri Devi. In view of said order of the Collector, the writ petitioner/appellant herein could get only limited relief that she could participate in the selection process, but no relief could have been granted for directing her appointment on the vacant post, until and unless the order of the Collector, contained in the consequential direction to hold a fresh selection was under challenge. Since that order was not under challenge, the writ court rightly refused to consider granting any further relief to the writ petitioner. In our view, the matter does not require any interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with a direction 2 that if the selection process starts, the appellant may participate in the same. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( C.M.Prasad,J )