ORDER : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 2 of MP Uchha Nyayalaya Khandnyayapeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.7048/2011 and also the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in the review petition no.1309/2023. 2. The appellant was not a party to the original writ petition, which was filed by the respondent no.6/Shanaz Bano, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Against the said order, the appellant, who was not a party to the writ petition, filed the review petition, which has been dismissed by order dated 06.12.2023. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. The appellant was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for ward no.5 Garoth District Mandsaur in the year 1966. Thereafter, she was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker in the year 2016 for ward no.5 Garoth District, Mandsaur. The appellant was appointed by order dated 19.12.2016. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition no.5045/2010. 4. The said petition WP No.5045/2010 was filed by the respondent no.6/Shanaz Bano, challenging the order dated 25.10.2010 filed being aggrieved by not deciding the representation of the petitioner of the writ petition in the said petition. 5. The said petition was disposed of, directing the respondent no.3 of the said writ petition to decide the representation within the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 6. The said representation was rejected by the order dated 25.10.2010 directing the respondent no.4 to take steps for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent no.6/writ petitioner in the said petition on the post of Anganwadi Worker. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.6 filed the appeal before the respondent no.2 and the said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 01.08.2011. 7. The learned Single Judge considered the following facts of the said case as under:- 7.1 The District Programme Officer, Women & Child Development, Mandsaur issued an advertisement dated 27.07.2009 for appointment to the post of Aanganwadi Worker and Aanganwadi Assistant in newly sanctioned 342 Aanganwadi Centres. 7. The learned Single Judge considered the following facts of the said case as under:- 7.1 The District Programme Officer, Women & Child Development, Mandsaur issued an advertisement dated 27.07.2009 for appointment to the post of Aanganwadi Worker and Aanganwadi Assistant in newly sanctioned 342 Aanganwadi Centres. The petitioner submitted an application for Aanganwadi Centre, Garod, Ward No.6, she was selected and an appointment order dated 14.10.2009 was issued by the Project Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was orally directed to work in Aanganwadi Centre situated at Ward No.5, and thereafter, vide order dated 06.03.2010, the Project Officer directed the petitioner to work in Aanganwadi Centre, Ward No.5. 7.2 The petitioner submitted a representation that she cannot be compelled to work at Ward No.5, where Archana Soni is already working. When the representation was not decided, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.5045 of 2010 and vide order dated 17.05.2010, writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to decide the representation. 7.3 Vide order dated 25.10.2010, the Collector considered matter in totality and found that petitioner has wrongly been appointed at Ward No.6 as no post of Aanganwadi Worker was vacant. The Project Officer wrongly issued the advertisement for Ward No.6 because Archana Soni was already working by virtue of appointment order dated 14.08.2006 and accordingly, directed the Project Officer to initiate the process for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner. The Collector also directed for initiation of disciplinary action against the concerned Clerk for issuing the advertisement for Ward No.6. 7.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2011. Hence, the present petition is before this Court. 7.5 After notice, respondents / State filed a reply by submitting that Archana Soni had already been appointed for Ward No.6, therefore, the advertisement has wrongly been issued. Since the Collector has noticed the said mistake, therefore, he rightly directed to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice has been issued to Project Officer as well as Assistant, Grade - III. 7.6 The appointment order of Archana Soni is filed as Annexure-P/4, which reveals that she was appointed for Wards No.5 & 6 on 14.08.2006. Thereafter, a new centre was created in Ward No.6 which evident from Annexure-P/5. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice has been issued to Project Officer as well as Assistant, Grade - III. 7.6 The appointment order of Archana Soni is filed as Annexure-P/4, which reveals that she was appointed for Wards No.5 & 6 on 14.08.2006. Thereafter, a new centre was created in Ward No.6 which evident from Annexure-P/5. Against Ward No.5, one centre is mentioned which is already in existence and new centre was established in Garod Ward No.6. When Archana Soni was appointed, there was one Aanganwadi Centre for Wards No.5 & 6. After establishment of new Aanganwadi Centre in Ward No.6, an advertisement dated 27.07.2009 was issued and in pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed for Ward No.6. Since Archana Soni was appointed at earlier point of time in the year 2006 and at that time Aanganwadi Centre was there in Ward No.5, therefore, she is liable to be treated as Aanganwadi Worker of Ward No.5 which was already in existence. The Collector wrongly observed that advertisement was wrongly issued for Ward No.6 as the said post was not vacant. There is nothing on record that after the order passed by the Collector, any notice for termination of the petitioner has been issued. The Collector has only directed the Project Officer to initiate the process for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner. The Aanganwadi Centre in Ward No.5 was already in existence in the year 2006 when respondent No.5 was appointed. Since there was no Aanganwadi Centre in Ward No.6, therefore, respondent No.5 was appointed for joint Aanganwadi Centre of Wards No.5 & 6. After creation of new Aanganwadi Centre in Ward No.6, this petition was appointed, hence, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be an illegal appointment. 8. After considering the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 25.10.2010 and the earlier order passed by the Commissioner dated 01.08.2011. The petition filed by the respondent no.6/Shanaz Bano was allowed and it was held that she will be treated into the service by virtue of the appointment order dated 10.04.2009 in ward no.6 and the respondent no.5 shall work at ward no.5 as Anganwadi Worker by virtue of the appointment order dated 14.10.1966. 9. The petition filed by the respondent no.6/Shanaz Bano was allowed and it was held that she will be treated into the service by virtue of the appointment order dated 10.04.2009 in ward no.6 and the respondent no.5 shall work at ward no.5 as Anganwadi Worker by virtue of the appointment order dated 14.10.1966. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant was not impleaded party in the writ petition filed by the respondent no.6, though the present appellant was working on the post of Anganwadi Workder at Anganwadi Center Garoth ward no.5. It is further argued that as per clause 8, the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the decision of the writ petition no.5045/2010 filed by the respondent no.6 and once the said writ petiton was disposed of and when the respondent no.6 filed fresh petition, the appellant ought to have been impleaded as party in the writ petition. It is further argued that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary. 10. In support of her submission, she placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Cochin University of Science and Technology and Sudheesh Kumar and Ors reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 913 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rajkumar Savita and Ors Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.2596/2016 decided on 20.08.2024. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the state and the respondent no.6 supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 argued that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the outcome of the writ petition no.5045/2010, and the said petition was disposed of with a direction to the authority to decide the representation and thereafter the representation of the petitioner was rejected and thereafter a fresh petition WP No.7048/2011 was filed and the said petition was nothing but continuation of the eariler petition WP No.5045/2010. The appointment of the appellant was a fallacious appointment and therefore once the writ petition filed by the respondent no.6 has been allowed, the appointment of the petitioner automatically comes to an end. The appellant was not a necessary party and, therefore, he was rightly not impleaded as a party in the writ petition. 13. The appointment of the appellant was a fallacious appointment and therefore once the writ petition filed by the respondent no.6 has been allowed, the appointment of the petitioner automatically comes to an end. The appellant was not a necessary party and, therefore, he was rightly not impleaded as a party in the writ petition. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 further argued that admittedly, the appellant was appointed for the post of Anganwadi Workder of Anganwadi Centre Garoth District Mandsaur, ward no.5, whereas the claim of the respondent no.6 has been allowed by the learned Single Judge in respect of ward no.6 and the respondent No.5 has been directed to work at ward no.5. Thus, the appellant cannot have any grievance in respect of Anganwadi Center ward no.6 because the appellant was appointed against the post of Anganwadi Worker in ward no.5. Thus, the appointment of the appellant is nothing but a fallacious appointment. 14. The law in relation to fallacious appointment is well settled. In the case of Baby Samuel Vs. Tukaram Laxman Sable and Ors reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 215, the Apex Court held that if the appointment was made in the vacancy caused by removal/disqualification of a person and the said removal/disqualification goes, the consequential action cannot stand. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- 8. The question now arises for consideration is, as to whether on the restoration of respondent no.3 on the post of Panchayat Karmi, the petitioner, who was appointed on removal of respondent no.3, will have any right to continue on the said post ?. The same issue had come up before the Supreme Court in the matter of Baby Samuel vs Tukaram Laxman Sable and others (1995 Supp (4) SCC 2151, wherein the Supreme Court held that if the appointment was made in the vacancy caused by removal/disqualification of a person and the said removal/disqualification goes, the consequential action cannot stand. The Supreme Court held that:-: "Because the State Government did not pass any orders on the stay petition filed by the appellant in his appeal preferred against the orders removal/disqualification, the Collector notified and held an election to the office of the President, whereat Shri Sable was elected as President. The Supreme Court held that:-: "Because the State Government did not pass any orders on the stay petition filed by the appellant in his appeal preferred against the orders removal/disqualification, the Collector notified and held an election to the office of the President, whereat Shri Sable was elected as President. This election was again a consequence of the removal/disqualification is set aside by the Government So, once the order of removal/disqualification is set- aside by the Government, the appellant is entitled to be put back in the same position which he was in before he was removed. In other words not only should he be restored to the Councillorship but also to the office of the President. Shri Sable was elected as the President in the vacancy caused by the removal/disqualification the of the once appellant and said removal/disqualification of the appellant goes, the consequential action cannot stand; it fails to ground alongwith the order of removal. Shri Sable must therefore yield ground to the appellant." 15. In view of the aforesaid preposition of law, this court finds that the appellant had no right to claim the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition no.5045/2010. The aforesaid preposition of law has been further followed by the Division Bench at Indore in WP No.6056/2008 (s). 16. The judgments which have been relied by the learned counsel for the appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case. Those judgments deal with the preposition of law with ad-hoc appointment cannot be substituted by another ad-hoc appointment. 17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.