JUDGMENT Per A.M. Magrey, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment/order of learned writ Court dated 29.09.2015 passed in SWP No. 478/2015 captioned "Jameela Akther v. State and Ors." for setting aside the same, whereby the petition of petitioner (herein appellant) has been dismissed. 2. Pursuant to advertisement Notice No. CDPO/LP/14/239 dated 15.10.2014 applications on prescribed forms were invited from the eligible female candidates for various Hamlets/ Mohallas for their engagement as Anganwari Workers purely on honorarium basis including Mugal Pora Qammer. It is submitted that appellant-petitioner being eligible applied along with other eligible candidates before last date of submission of application forms i.e 31.10.14. It is submitted that one more candidate namely Sabzara Bano had also applied against the said post and due to coming into force Model Conduct of 2014 elections, the process of selection for engagement/appointment of Anganwari Workers remained pending. During pendency of the selection process, respondents instead of finalizing the selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement notice dated 15.10.2014, issued another notice dated 05.03.2015, by which they have extended the date for submission of forms for filling up the post of AWW/AWH. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid notice, appellant petitioner (therein) called in question the said Notice by way of filing the writ petition SWT No. 478/2015 on the ground that after four months of initiation of selection process in pursuance of the first Notification, the impugned notification has been issued and this has been done only to accommodate the blue eyed persons. 4. Respondents while responding to the writ petition, have stated that because of poor response to the earlier Notification, it was deemed appropriate, in public interest to extend the time for filing of the applications by seven days from the date of publication of Notification. 5. The learned Writ Court while considering the matter in the totality of the circumstances found that the writ petition is misconceived, inasmuch as, no ground is pleaded which would require consideration for interfering with the impugned Notice, except the pleading that four months time has elapsed from the date the earlier Notification was issued and that some blue eyed persons are to be accommodated. The writ court found that nothing is said in the writ petition about the blue eyed persons and only general allegation is made. 6. The writ court found that nothing is said in the writ petition about the blue eyed persons and only general allegation is made. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 7. Ld. counsel for the appellant has reiterated the ground taken in the writ petition and the LPA and urged that after four months of initiating ol selection process in pursuance of the first Notification, the impugned Notification in the writ petit ion has been issued and this has been done only to accommodate the blue eyed persons. 8. Ld. counsel tor thr- appellant was pointedly asked as to what is bad about the Notification with reference to extension of time in submission of application forms when the selection authority has found that because of poor response to the earlier Notification, it was deemed proper to extend the time for filing of application by seven days from the date of publication of Notification, had no response, but to raise the bald and general allegation to accommodate some blue eyed persons without specifying those persons and without identifying them. 9. The Writ Court has rightly observed that the allegations, otherwise falls lock, stock and barrel for the reason that this is not only Anganwari Centre where the petitioner appellant (herein) had applied for seeking engagement as Anganwari Worker but there are 13 other Anganwari Centres where the time has been extended by seven days for filing of applications. 10. We, accordingly, hold this Letters Patent Appeal to be totally without any merit and, therefore, unnecessary and liable to be dismissed at this threshold stage. 11. No order as to costs. LPA dismissed