IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1065 of 2010 Pratima Ranjan, W/O Sri Sudhir Kumar, R/O Vill.- Patepur Gopinath, P.O.- Dighra, P.S.- Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur ---- Appellant-Writ Petitioner. Versus 1. The Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar through its Registrar, having its Headquarters at and P.O. Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar at and P.O. Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur 3. The Director Of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, At and P.O. Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur 4. The Director Of Research and Chairman, Selection Committee, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, At and P.O. Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur 5. The Officer in Charge, Recruitment, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at and P.O. Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur 6. The Director Of Extension Education, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, At and P.O. Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur -----Respondent- Respondents. ----------- 5. 24.6.2011 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha for the appellant, and Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General No.2 for respondent nos. 1 to 4. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1935 of 2002, and is aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed with the liberty to be considered against later advertisement(s) in accordance with law and the age bar 2 shall not operate against her. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Respondents had published an advertisement on 25.1.2000, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Office Superintendent-cum-Accountant in Krishi Vigyan Kendras setup with the financial support of Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The appellant along with others had submitted their applications. After the selection process was completed, it was cancelled by the Vice-Chancellor followed by the present writ petition. The same has been dismissed on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor had cancelled the selection process and two fresh advertisements for the purpose have already been issued, namely, advertisement no.2 of 2004 and advertisement no.2 of 2008. The writ petition has, therefore, been dismissed with the direction to the respondents to consider her case under subsequent advertisement(s), and age bar shall not operate against her. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the selection process had been cancelled by the Vice-Chancellor for administrative reasons. 3 Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents rightly submits that no appointment at all has been made under the first advertisement and, therefore, no enforceable right is created in favour of the appellant. Furthermore, two advertisements have been issued inviting applications for appointment, and the appellant has submitted her application. We agree with the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the appellant’s application shall be considered on merits, and the age bar shall not operate against her. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)