IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.513 of 2010 1. RANJITA KUMARI W/O AJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- RAGHOPUR, P.O.- RAGHOPUR, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR. -----Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER SAMASTIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER SAMASTIPUR 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER ROSERA, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 9. BIMLA DEVI W/O LATE HARI KANT CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- RAGHOPUR, P.O.- RAGHOPUR, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR --------------------Respondents. ----------- 2 18-03-2010 I.A. No.2641 of 2010. This is an application for grant of leave to prefer the appeal. Be it noted, the prayer of leave has been made 2 to assail the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.16792 of 2009. On perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Collector, it is evincible that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika and thereafter by order dated 2.7.2009 of the District Magistrate she was slazpped with an order of termination without following the principles of natural justice. She knocked at the doors of the Collector and thereafter Commissioner for redressal of her grievance but met with unsuccess. Being dissatisfied with it she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision rendered in Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors., 2004(2) PLJR 833 quashed the orders of the authorities below. It is submitted by Mr. Pramod Rajpati, learned counsel for the appellant that after order of termination was passed against Bimla Devi, the writ petitioner, the present appellant was appointed and, therefore, she should have been afforded the opportunity of heaqring 3 by the writ Court. We are afraid, the said submission cannot be given acceptation inasmuch as she was not the initiator for removal of the Anganbari Sevika and also she was not a party before the authorities below. Whast is submitted is that a right has ripened in her favour after she got the appointment as Anganbari Sevika. In our considered opinion, Bimla Devi challenged her order of termination and that is an individual grievance, which was sought to be agitated before the authorities below and the writ Court and, therefore, the adversaries would be the authorities that passed the order and not the person who was appointed against the post subsequently. Thus, we are of the considered opinion, the appellant does not have the locus standi to prefer an appeal by obtaining leave as she was not a necessary party to the litigation. We may hasten to clarify, while declining to grant leave to the present appellant, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the order passed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as it may be open to any grieved party to prefer an appeal against the same. 4 The application for leave is accordingly rejected and as a sequitur the appeal also stands dismissed in limine. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)