p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.499 of 2025 Swarnaprava Jena &. Appellant Represented by Adv.- Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv. -versus- State Of Odisha & Ors. &. Respondents Represented by Adv.- Mr. J.Khandayat Ray, ASC Mr. S.S. Das, Adv. for R.5 CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 09.03.2026 This Intra-Court Appeal by a non-party seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge9s order dated 07.02.2025, whereby 5th Respondent9s WP(C) No.33632 of 2021 having been favoured, her termination is set at naught with a direction for re-instatement. An application seeking leave of the Court to prosecute the Appeal is also moved. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant vehemently argues that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in granting relief to the 5th Respondent by way of reinstatement to the post to which the Appellant has been nominated and that too with no opportunity of hearing to her. Therefore, counsel submits, impugned order is liable to be set at naught on the ground of violation of Order No. 05. p. 2 principles of natural justice, since her bread wining itself is put to stake. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No.5 opposes the Appeal on the ground of maintainability by invoking a doctrine akin to lis pendens; he submits that the appointment of the Appellant to the post in question happened when the removal of his client was put in challenge before this Court and therefore, any appointment in such a situation would be subject to outcome of the lis. We agree with this. A person appointed to a post when the earlier incumbent had put in challenge his/her removal has no right of lien to the post in an absolute way. It is more like an interim arrangement subject to outcome of the event which caused vacancy in the post in question. 4. Now, we are told at the Bar that the subject Anganwadi Centre is being bifurcated and eventually a recommendation is sent for fructifying the bifurcation and making appointment to the eventual vacancies and that the said proposal is pending before the Government. Suffice it to say that the Government should take a call at the earliest in its discretion. In the event the decision of the Government goes adverse, aggrieved person may challenge it and in that connection all grounds are kept open. In the above observations, Writ Appeal is disposed off. The order of the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks and a compliance report shall be filed with the Registrar General of this Court also within eight (8) weeks. p. 3 Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Prasant