IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4585 of 2009 Sushma Kumari Srivastava Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 21/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim by the petitioner is to be considered for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika at Centre No.49, Saidupur in the District of Saran.It is fairly submitted that one Neelam Devi wrongly came to be appointed ignoring the claim of the petitioner. On the protest of the petitioner, she was subsequently terminated, but the petitioner has not been considered. Once a person is appointed on a post, the vacancy exhausts. Any termination subsequently can only be filled by a fresh process of selection. If the grievance with regard to wrong appointment was made during a period of one year, considered to be the normal life of a panel, and the appointment was found to be wholly illegal leading to termination, a claim may arise for consideration, but keeping in mind that considerable time has passed since the filing of the writ application it shall be subject to availability of vacancy. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)