2025:JHHC:17466-DB -1 of 2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 247 of 2025 Madhu Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of Narendra Vishwakarma, resident of village Siyarbhukka, P.O. & P.S. Hariharganj, District- Palamu. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, P.O., P.S. and District Palamu. 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, P.O. & P.S. & District Palamu. 3. The District Social Welfare Officer, Palamu, P.O. & P.S. & District Palamu. 4. The Child Welfare Project Officer, Hariharganj, P.O., P.S. & District Palamu. 5. Mina Devi, Meena Kumari @ Meena Devi, aged about 43 years, wife of Dilip Kumar, resident of Hariharganj East, P.O., & P.S. Hariharganj, District-Palamu ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II. --------- 02/Dated: 02.07.2025 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dt. 20th March, 2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3368 of 2019. 2. In the said Writ petition, Respondent No. 5 had challenged an order dt.13.06.2019 by which the 2nd respondent had directed her removal from the post of ‘Anganbadi Sevika’, and the consequential order also issued on the same date, whereby her services as an ‘Anganbadi Sevika’ have been terminated. The learned Single Judge had interfered with the said orders on the ground that the allegations levelled against respondent No. 5 were vague, there is also evidence of bias and there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant however, contends that in the vacancy created on the termination of the service of the 5th respondent, she had been appointed, 2025:JHHC:17466-DB -2 of 2- and now that the 5th respondent had succeeded in the Writ petition filed by her, the appellant is to be thrown out of employment and therefore, prejudice is caused to the appellant. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter back to the official respondent and could not have directed reinstatement of respondent No. 5. 4. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge the post of ‘Anganbadi Sevika’ fell vacant only after the 5th respondent was removed. Once, the removal of the 5th respondent has been declared to be illegal and set aside by the learned Single Judge, the natural consequence would be to reinstate the 5th respondent. Unless the appellant is removed from service, the 5th respondent cannot be reinstated. Merely because the appellant had worked in the intervening period for some time, there is no vested right in the appellant to continue in the employment to the prejudice of the 5th respondent. 5. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) APK/Pramanik