- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.05.2009 passed in W.P(S) NO.894/2009 by which the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and was pleased to set aside the order of termination of the petitioner/respondent no.7 herein granting liberty to the respondent-appointing authority to take legal action against the respondent no.7 in accordance with law after following due procedure established by law and at least after following principle of natural justice.
(2.) The implication of this order is absolutely clear as the petitioner/respondent no.7 herein had assailed the order of termination as Anganbari Sewika on the plea that she was removed from the service even without any show cause or opportunity of hearing. That was the reason for her to file the writ petition before the learned Single Bench and the subsequent appointee on the post who is the appellant herein was also impleaded. However, the learned Single Judge although was pleased to set aside the order of termination of the petitioner/respondent no.7 herein, no direction had been issued to disturb the appointment of the appellant who was respondent no.7 in the writ petition and no direction was issued by the learned Single Judge to affect any one who was appointed later including the appellant herein. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is merely to the effect that the respondent-appointing authority should not have terminated the services of the petitioner/respondent no.7 in this appeal as no opportunity of hearing was awarded to her before removing her from service. The learned Single Judge thus, interfered in the writ petition only to the extent by which opportunity of hearing was ordered to be granted to the petitioner/respondent no.7 herein before removing her from service.
(3.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who had been impleaded as respondent no.7 in the writ petition had been appointed in place of the petitioner/respondent no.7 in this appeal. The learned Single Judge, however, has not recorded any observation affecting the appointment of the appellant/respondent no.7 herein but, by virtue of a consequence, if the appellant/respondent no.7 herein has been affected, that obviously would be a fresh cause of action for her to challenge her termination and the same cannot be entertained by way of an appeal as there is no direction in the impugned order affecting the appointment of the appellant/respondent no.7 herein. Hence, the appeal, at the instance of the appellant who was respondent no.7 in the writ petition cannot be entertained. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.;