Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. However, no one appears on behalf of the private respondents despite their appearance in this Court. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 921 dated 17.9.90 whereby and whereunder 32 persons have been appointed including some of Anganbari Sevikas on the post of Lady Supervisor in the Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was senior to respondent nos. 5 to 12 as she had put in longer services than these respondents and the authorities without considering seniority of the petitioner ignored her case and respondent nos. 5 to 10 were appointed on the post of the Lady Supervisor against a scale. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the circular of the State Government as contained in Annexure-8, 25 per cent of the post of the supervisor was to be filled up from amongst Anganbari Sevikas and respondents ignoring the circular and also seniority of the petitioner ignored her case and juniors were appointed. 5. It would appear from Annexure-8 itself that 25 percent of the post of the Lady Supervisors is to be filled up from amongst the suitable candidates working as Anganbari Sevikas. Nowhere in the writ application, it has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner was found suitable for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor and her case was not considered by the authorities. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a panel was prepared from amongst Anganbari Sevikas and the name of the petitioner was shown at serial no.11 whereas her name could have been shown at serial no.7. From the materials on record it appears that appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor was made on the basis of the panel wherein the private respondent nos. 5 to 12 have been shown above the petitioner. 6. From the circular of the State Government as contained in Annexure-8, it appears that suitability was only criterion for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor. 5 to 12 have been shown above the petitioner. 6. From the circular of the State Government as contained in Annexure-8, it appears that suitability was only criterion for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor. In absence of any statement in the writ application that the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment finding her suitable on the post of Lady Supervisor, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to her. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, therefore, I find no merit in this application. It is thus, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 8. However, it is observed that in future, in case the post of Lady Supervisor under the Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna falls vacant, the same shall be filled up in accordance with law and the case of the petitioner, if she is found to be eligible, shall also be considered.