Smt.Pooja Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66795
1 WP-20708-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 20708 of 2017
SMT.POOJA LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Vineet Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Rao - Panel Lawyer for State.
Mr. Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for respondent no.6.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the Hon’ble Court please to set-aside and, the
order impugned order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the
respondent No.2 (Commissioner Division Sagar)
ANNEXURE-P/8, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That, the Hon’ble Court further pleased to quash the
impugned order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the
respondent No.5 Project Officer (ANNEXURE P/9)
with regards to removal of the petitioner, in the interest
of justice.
(iii) That, the Hon’ble Court further pleased to reinstate
service of the petitioner by quashing the order
impugned dated 3-11.2017 passed by the Project
Officer (respondent No. 5) ANNEXURE-P/9.
(iv) That, Any other direction/orders, which deemed fit
and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66795
2 WP-20708-2017
Anganwadi Assistant at Anganwadi Centre, Pargaspura, District Sagar, vide

order dated 08.09.2016, pursuant to a duly conducted selection process in
which she secured first position in the merit list. Prior thereto, respondent
No.6, who had been appointed in 2007, was removed from service on
04.01.2016 on account of unauthorized absence after due enquiry.
Respondent No.6 challenged her removal; while her first appeal was
dismissed by the Collector, the Commissioner, Division Sagar, allowed her
second appeal vide order dated 17.10.2017, without impleading or hearing
the petitioner, whose appointment was directly affected. Consequently, the
Project Officer, vide order dated 03.11.2017, removed the petitioner and
directed reinstatement of respondent No.6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
filed the present petition, challenging the aforesaid orders principally on the
ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as she was neither
impleaded nor afforded an opportunity of hearing despite her subsisting
appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6,
whose services had earlier been terminated on account of her absence from
duty, challenged the said order of termination. Although her appeal before
the Collector was dismissed, the Commissioner, in the second appeal,
subsequently allowed the same and directed her reinstatement, without
impleading the petitioner or affording her an opportunity of hearing, despite
the fact that the petitioner’s appointment was directly affected by the said
order. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by the
Commissioner, the petitioner was removed from service without issuance of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66795
3 WP-20708-2017
any show-cause notice or affording her an opportunity of hearing, thereby

violating the principles of natural justice as well as the applicable
Government guidelines. Learned counsel further submits that the
Commissioner failed to properly consider the alleged deficiencies in the
original candidature of respondent No.6, her absence from duty, and the
documents pertaining to her local residence. On the aforesaid grounds,
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated
17.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 and restoration of the petitioner in service.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the respondent
No.6 was initially appointed as Anganwadi Assistant in the year 2007 and
was removed from service vide order dated 04.01.2016, which was
subsequently set aside by the Commissioner, Division Sagar, in Second
Appeal No.243-A-89/2016-17 vide order dated 17.10.2017. Consequently,
the Project Officer passed the order dated 03.11.2017 for her reinstatement.
It is contended that the petitioner was appointed subsequently against the
post which had fallen vacant upon removal of respondent No.6 and,
therefore, her appointment did not create any indefeasible right to continue
against the post, particularly after the order of removal of respondent No.6
was set aside by the competent appellate authority.
5. It is further submitted that the Commissioner, after examining the
grievance of respondent No.6, rightly directed her reinstatement and the
consequential order dated 03.11.2017 was merely passed in compliance
thereof. The allegations raised by the appellant/petitioner regarding the
original appointment, residence, BPL status, qualification and absence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66795
4 WP-20708-2017
respondent No.6 involve disputed questions of fact and do not warrant

interference in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, no illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error has been demonstrated in the impugned orders and the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner cannot be faulted, as she had participated in the subsequent
selection process and was appointed in accordance with law. However,
owing to the final adjudication of the termination of respondent No.6, the
petitioner is required to vacate the post. It is submitted that this Court has
already held that where a person is appointed subsequently against a post
which fell vacant due to the termination of the respondent, and such
termination is subsequently set aside, the original incumbent is liable to be
reinstated on the said post. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.A. No.2581 of 2025 (Smt.
Rani Kushwaha Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh), decided on 15.09.2025.
8. It is found that as the advertisement was issued in result of
termination of respondent no.6 on account of her prolonged absence from
duty, which was later on set aside in appeal and the respondent No.6 was
reinstated, therefore, the petitioner was not having any substantive right to
claim that she be appointed in place of respondent no.6 because the
termination of respondent No.6 was set aside by the appellate court before
the appointment of the petitioner, therefore, no substantive right has been
accrued in favor of the petitioner. Otherwise also the Division Bench,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66795
5 WP-20708-2017
Gwalior of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 2581/2025-Smt Rani Kushwaha

vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 15.09.2025 has held as under:
"10. Once the earlier incumbent (respondent no.5 herein) was
terminated and termination was challenged by the respondent no.5,
first before Collector and, thereafter, before Commissioner, it
means process was under way and impliedly appointment of
appellant was subject to final outcome of said litigation initiated at
the instance of respondent no.5. This aspect was discussed in
detail by the Division Bench of this Court in case of R.P.
No.380/2012 (Jhunilal Yadav vs. State of M.P. {2014 SCC
Online MP 3951}) dated 16.04.2014 in which Division Bench has
held as under:-
"It is the case of the applicant now in the application that the
applicant was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi based on an
advertisement and recruitment process conducted by the
Panchayat in the year 2001 and as the applicant was working
in the panchayat, the order passed for reinstating Smt. Vijay
Laxmi Mishra has the result of removing the applicant from
service and as this has been done without hearing him, the
action is unsustainable.
Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 5 refuted the aforesaid and pointed out that
services of Smt. was terminated in the year 2000 and after
her termination the applicant was appointed in a vacancy that
arose due to termination of Smt. Vijay Laxmi Mishra. It is
said that termination of the original employee namely Smt.
Vijay Laxmi Mishra having been found to be unsustainable,
applicant has to make room as the applicant's appointment
was on a vacancy which was created after termination of
respondent Smt. Vijay Laxmi Mishra. Accordingly, it is
submitted by him that no error has been committed, applicant
is not entitled for any hearing and no case for review is made
out.
We find much force and substance in the objection raised by
Shri Atulanand Awasthy. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Mishra was
working as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary and in the
year 2000 her services were terminated. After terminating
her services, in a vacany resultantly caused applicant herein
was appointed but once the termination of Smt. Vijay Laxmi
is quashed she is to be re-appointed as a Panchayat Karmi,
the applicant cannot resist that reinstatement on the ground
that applicant has been appointed. Applicant having been
appointed in a vacant post created after termination of Smt.
Vijay Laxmi cannot have any grievance in the matter of
reinstatement of Smt. Vijay Laxmi after her termination is
quashed.
In the facts and circumstances as are detailed herein above,
merely on the ground that applicant was not impleaded in the
original writ petition and he was not heard in the matter, we
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66795
6 WP-20708-2017
see no reason to review/recall the order. If the applicant has
any grievance for continuing him in service in any other
Panchayat, he may take up the matter with the competent
authority and it would be fore the competent authority to
consider the same. On the basis of consideration made herein
above, we see no reason to interfere. There is no error
apparent on the face of record warranting review/recall of the
order."
11. Since respondent no.5 was pursuing litigation and matter was
pending before different authorities for consideration, therefore,
natural consequence of the litigation if goes in favor of respondent
no.5 by way of her reinstatement, then appellant being subsequent
appointee has to give way. Appointment of appellant was
impliedly subject to outcome of the litigation persuaded by
respondent no.5.
12. If the arguments of appellant are accepted, then it impliedly
renders the proceedings (appeal before Collector and
Commissioner) otiose. In fact this makes a delinquent employee
remedy-less because if he pursues the remedy, in which outcome
is already written on the wall because of appointment of
incumbent (appellant herein), then those proceedings/remedies are
of no use. To give meaning and effect to those remedies and to
vindicate stand of a delinquent it is imperative that a delinquent
employee be given a chance for reinstatement if he/she proves the
case that he/she was innocent and on false pretext removed from
the job. Then he/she is certainly entitled for reinstatement."
9. As per the order passed by the Division Bench, if an employee is

pursuing litigation and matter was pending before different authorities for
consideration and the natural consequence of the litigation if goes in favor of
the said employee by way of his/her reinstatement then subsequent
employee/appointee has to give way.
10. In the present case, initiation of recruitment process was due to the
termination of respondent no.6, which ultimately got set aside in appeal.
Therefore, no case is made out for interference at this stage.
11. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation
before the competent authority. If such representation is submitted within a
period of 15 days from today, then, the competent authority is directed to
consider the representation of the petitioner to grant appointment or adjust
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66795
7 WP-20708-2017
the petitioner on any other vacant post, if there is no legal impediment to do

so. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:54:39 PM