Termination found wrongful by competent authority does not constitute a permanent disqualification for subsequent re-appointment.

Respondent No. 1 (Kanti Chauhan) was initially appointed as an Anganwadi Worker but was terminated on 06.01.2017 for unauthorized absence.

The Collector dismissed her appeal on 27.06.2017.

Subsequently, on 27.07.2018, the General Body of the Janpad Panchayat passed a resolution declaring her removal wrongful and directing reinstatement; she was later re-appointed on 15.07.2020 following a fresh selection process.

The Petitioner (Dutiya Pradhan) challenged this appointment before the Collector, who set aside Respondent No. 1’s appointment on 07.02.2022, leading to the Petitioner’s appointment on 22.02.2022.

Respondent No. 1 filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who, on 22.09.2023, set aside the Collector's order and restored Respondent No. 1 to the post.

The Petitioner moved the High Court to quash the Additional Commissioner’s order.

Whether a prior termination, subsequently declared wrongful by a competent local body, constitutes a permanent disqualification for re-appointment under State Government Circulars.

Whether the Additional Commissioner exceeded revisional jurisdiction or acted arbitrarily in reversing the Collector’s order.

Clause 1.4 of the State Government Circular dated 02.04.2008, which stipulates that a terminated candidate is ineligible for re-appointment to the same post.

Principles of regularisation and procedural irregularities from *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi* (2006) 4 SCC 1 and *Jaggo v. Union of India* (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826, emphasizing that rights should not be defeated on hyper-technical grounds if appointments are not inherently illegal.

The principle that Article 14 does not encompass "negative equality".

The Court reasoned that the Additional Commissioner acted within legal limits by acknowledging the Janpad Panchayat’s resolution, which effectively nullified the "wrongful" nature of the initial termination.

It held that Clause 1.4 of the 2008 Circular cannot be applied mechanically; if the foundation of a termination is found to be unjustified by a competent authority, it cannot act as a perpetual bar to employment.

The Court found the Collector’s order flawed as it ignored the subsequent developments/resolutions of 2018.

Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to prove any hostile discrimination under Articles 14 or 16, as the setting aside of an order in her favor does not constitute a constitutional violation.

The Court also noted the Petitioner’s failure to disclose all material facts regarding Respondent No. 1’s reinstatement orders.

The High Court upheld the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 22.09.2023, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error.

The writ petition was dismissed, and Respondent No. 1’s restoration to the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker was affirmed.