Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent case decided by the Patna High Court, the issue involved the reinstatement of an Anganwadi Sevika who had been removed from her position over a decade ago. The petitioner, who had been working as Anganwadi Sevika since 2016, challenged the reinstatement of the previous Sevika, respondent no.8, whose removal had led to the petitioner's appointment.
The background dates back to 2011 when respondent no.8 was removed from service for being absent without sanctioned leave during the Pulse Polio Programme. She filed an appeal against her removal in 2011–12, but the matter remained pending. Meanwhile, in 2016, the petitioner was selected through an Aam Sabha and began working in the same position.
In 2017, the District Magistrate allowed the pending appeal and ordered the reinstatement of respondent no.8, effectively removing the petitioner from her post. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the order of reinstatement, alleging that she was not given a chance to present her side and that the appeal had been unduly delayed.
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed her writ petition in 2022. The petitioner then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging that dismissal. However, the Division Bench also rejected the appeal. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2016) 2 SCC 779], holding that the petitioner, having been appointed during the pendency of the appeal, had no independent right or locus to challenge the outcome of a valid appeal by the previously appointed Sevika.
The Court clarified that since the petitioner's appointment was consequential to the vacancy created by the allegedly wrongful removal of the original Sevika, she could not claim a right to the position if that removal was later found invalid. It emphasized that she was a “third party to the lis” and had no legal standing in the appeal proceedings between the government and the reinstated Sevika.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling has important implications for public employment, especially for positions filled due to the removal of earlier appointees. It clarifies that appointments made during pending appeals are not final and can be reversed if the original decision is overturned.
For the government, this decision supports the principle of correcting wrongful removals even after a long delay. For individuals, it serves as a caution that jobs obtained in such scenarios are not secure until all related legal proceedings are settled. It encourages transparency and due process in employment-related decisions and reinforces the finality of appellate authority findings.
Legal Issues Decided
-
Whether a person appointed during the pendency of an appeal has the right to challenge the appeal’s outcome.
-
Validity of a reinstatement order passed after a delay of several years.
-
Applicability of principles laid down in Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Judgments Referred by Parties
-
Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 779
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by the Court
-
Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 779
Case Title
Minu Kumari @ Minu Kumari Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No. 668 of 2022
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15130 of 2018)
Citation(s)
2024(4)PLJR
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates
-
For the appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
-
For the State of Bihar (respondents): Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha (GA-7)
Link to the Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM2NjgjMjAyMiMxI04=-gJ94NcPKyJA=
0 Comments