JUDGMENT Keshav Kumar Trivedi, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09/07/2013 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in an appeal of respondent No.6 by which the order dated 31/1/2012 passed by Additional Collector, Damoh in an appeal filed by respondent No.6 has been set aside and removal of respondent No.6 from the post is also set aside. 3. Respondent No.6 was selected and appointed as Aaganwadi Worker in Aaganwadi Centre, Lakhni. There were certain complaints made against her and by order dated 15/12/2011 respondent No.6 was removed from the post by the Project Officer. Such an order was challenged in appeal before the Additional Collector, Damoh which was dismissed on 31/01/2012, therefore, second appeal in terms of the scheme made by the State Government, was filed by respondent No.6 and after hearing the said appeal, since the appeal has been allowed, the petitioner has come before this Court in this writ petition. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that fresh advertisement was issued after removal of service of respondent No.6 from service by the competent authority inviting applications for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Worker in the particular centre where respondent No.6 was earlier appointed. The petitioner, herein, made an application which was considered by the competent authority and vide order dated 24/8/2012 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Aaganwadi Worker. This fact that the petitioner was appointed as Aaganwadi Worker in place of respondent No.6, was well within her knowledge but she has not impleaded the petitioner as a party in the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner and as such without hearing the petitioner, the order could not have been passed by the appellate authority. It is further contended that second appeal would not lie against the order of competent appellate authority before the Additional Commissioner and as such the order impugned is bad in law. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner, has prayed for quashment of the order dated 09/07/2013 (Annexure- P/8). 5. The entire submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived. Firstly, respondent No.6 was not aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner as the appointment of petitioner was only against a fortuous vacancy which occurred on account of removal of service of respondent No.6. 5. The entire submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived. Firstly, respondent No.6 was not aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner as the appointment of petitioner was only against a fortuous vacancy which occurred on account of removal of service of respondent No.6. Such a removal from service was called in question in appeal before the Collector and since the appeal was dismissed, second appeal was required to be filed by respondent No.6. If such an appeal against the removal order is allowed, there would be no fortuous vacancy and any appointment made against the said vacancy would be subject to final outcome of the decision of the appeal filed before the competent appellate authority. Thus, the petitioner was neither a necessary party to be impleaded in the appeal nor was required to be heard at all. No wrong was committed in such a matter if the petitioner was not impleaded as respondent in the appeal filed by respondent No.6 before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar. 6. Now the second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second appeal would not lie before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar against the order passed by the first appellate authority. The Scheme made by the State Government for appointment of Aaganwadi Worker specifically contemplates that a person so appointed or who has not been given the appointment or who has been terminated or removed from service, would have a right to file appeal before the Collector against the order of the Project Officer. Second appeal would lie before the Commissioner of the Division. The Commissioner of the Division means Additional Commissioner also and, therefore, if the appeal was heard by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, it cannot be said that the authority was having no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. 7. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, cannot be accepted. In view of aforesaid, no error of law is found in the order passed by the appellate authority granting relief to respondent No.6. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed without notice to the other side.