A subsequent appointee to a termination-created vacancy must yield upon the original employee’s reinstatement.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Assistant at Anganwadi Centre, Pargaspura, District Sagar, on 8 September 2016, after securing first position in a duly conducted selection process.

Respondent No. 6 had earlier held the post since 2007 but was removed on 4 January 2016 for unauthorised absence after an enquiry. Her first appeal was dismissed by the Collector; however, the Commissioner, Division Sagar, allowed her second appeal on 17 October 2017 and directed her reinstatement, without impleading or hearing the petitioner.

Pursuant to the Commissioner’s order, the Project Officer removed the petitioner and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 6 by order dated 3 November 2017.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, principally alleging violation of natural justice and contending that she had been appointed through an independent, lawful selection process.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, while considering the principles of natural justice and the effect of reinstatement of an earlier incumbent.

It applied the rule that a subsequent appointee appointed against a vacancy created by the termination of an earlier employee acquires no substantive right to retain that post if the earlier termination is later set aside.

The Court relied on Smt. Rani Kushwaha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No. 2581 of 2025, decided on 15 September 2025, which held that a subsequent appointment is impliedly subject to the outcome of pending litigation concerning the earlier incumbent’s termination.

It also relied on Jhunilal Yadav v. State of M.P., R.P. No. 380 of 2012, 2014 SCC OnLine MP 3951, which held that a subsequent appointee must give way when the original employee’s termination is quashed and cannot resist reinstatement merely because the subsequent appointee was not heard.

The Court held that the petitioner’s appointment arose directly from the vacancy created by respondent No. 6’s termination.

Since that termination was under challenge before the appellate authorities and was ultimately set aside before the petitioner’s appointment, the petitioner’s appointment was subject to the result of that litigation and did not create an indefeasible right to the post.

Applying Rani Kushwaha and Jhunilal Yadav, the Court reasoned that permitting the subsequent appointee to defeat reinstatement would render the earlier employee’s statutory appellate remedy ineffective.

Consequently, respondent No. 6’s reinstatement was treated as the natural consequence of the successful appeal, and the petitioner was required to vacate the post.

Although the petitioner alleged that she had not been heard, the Court found no ground to interfere with the consequential removal because her appointment was derivative of the vacancy caused by respondent No. 6’s termination.

The Court held that the petitioner had no substantive right to continue against the post once respondent No. 6’s termination was set aside and her reinstatement directed.

However, the petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation within 15 days seeking appointment or adjustment against another vacant post.

The competent authority was directed to consider such representation, subject to there being no legal impediment, and complete the exercise within three months from production of a certified copy of the order.