ORDER D.N. Patel, C.J. - I.A. No. 2263 of 2015 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 47 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2263 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 505 of 2014 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner who had preferred W.P.(S) No. 588 of 2014 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 1st September, 2014 and, hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. The claim of this appellant to be continued on the post of Anganbari Sevika has not been accepted by this Court and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Annexure 10 dated 21st October, 2013 and the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau at Annexure 11 dated 21st November, 2013 have been upheld. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) was appointed on 9th June, 2007 as Anganbari Sevika at Village Tukbera, District Palamau. The said village is now bifurcated in Tukbera 01, Tukbera 02, Tukbera 03 and Tukbera 04. Tukbera 02 was reconstituted in the year 2007 on the basis of survey made in the year 2005 where Anganbari is situated, whereas, this appellant is not a resident of Tukbera 02. This is a reason for termination of her services because it is a condition precedent that Anganbari Sevika must be a resident of the village where Anganbari is situated. 6. Thus, Anganbari is situated at Tukbera 02, whereas, this appellant (original petitioner) is resident of Village Tukbera 01. Keeping in mind these facts, the impugned orders at Annexures 10 and 11 dated 21st October, 2013 as well as 21st November, 2013 respectively have been passed. We see no reason to quash these two orders. 6. Thus, Anganbari is situated at Tukbera 02, whereas, this appellant (original petitioner) is resident of Village Tukbera 01. Keeping in mind these facts, the impugned orders at Annexures 10 and 11 dated 21st October, 2013 as well as 21st November, 2013 respectively have been passed. We see no reason to quash these two orders. Fresh selection orders have already been passed much earlier in the year 2013 by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau for selection and appointment of Anganbari Sevika for the Anganbari situated at Tukbera 02. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 588 of 2014 vide order dated 1st September, 2014. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition and, hence, there being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, the same is, hereby, dismissed.