Reinstatement of a prior appointee by appellate authority nullifies subsequent selection made during pendency of the appeal.

The petitioner, Banti Kumari, was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika for Centre No. 06, Ward No. 1, Gram Panchayat Raj Maghra, Nalanda, following an Aam Sabha meeting on 21.01.2013 and an appointment letter dated 27.02.2013

Her appointment occurred because the previous Sevika (Respondent No. 7, Shyama Kumari) had been terminated on 21.02.2012 by the District Programme Officer for unauthorized absence during an inspection

Respondent No. 7 appealed her termination (Appeal No. 35 of 2012). While this appeal was pending, the petitioner was hired through a fresh recruitment process

On 19.10.2013, the Deputy Director of Welfare allowed Respondent No. 7’s appeal, set aside her termination, and ordered her reinstatement

The petitioner challenged this order, seeking to quash the reinstatement of Respondent No. 7

1. Whether the order passed by the Deputy Director of Welfare reinstating Respondent No. 7 was legally sound, given that a new appointment (the petitioner) had already been made in the interim.

2. Whether the eligibility criteria of the Anganwari Chayan Margdarshika 2011 (regarding residency and spouse’s employment) applied retrospectively to Respondent No. 7’s 1995 appointment.

The court applied the administrative principle of "Reinstatement upon Appellate Success," whereby the quashing of a termination order restores the status quo ante

The court also applied the doctrine of "Prospectivity of Guidelines," holding that the Anganwari Chayan Margdarshika 2011 (specifically the bar on wives of government employees) does not apply to appointments made under previous guidelines in 1995

The court found that Respondent No. 7 was originally appointed in 1995 and had served for nearly 17 years before her termination in 2012 based on a single instance of absence due to illness

The court accepted the appellate authority's finding that her termination was disproportionate and that her explanation (medical treatment at Sadar Hospital) was valid

Regarding the petitioner's claim that Respondent No. 7 violated 2011 residential and employment guidelines, the court noted that Respondent No. 7 was selected in 1994-95, a time when such restrictive conditions did not exist; thus, the 2011 guidelines could not be used to invalidate a decades-old appointment

Since the original vacancy only existed due to a termination that was later declared illegal, the subsequent appointment of the petitioner was inherently contingent on the outcome of the pending appeal

The writ petition was dismissed, and Respondent No. 7 was allowed to continue her services as Anganbari Sevika