“What has been stated in paragraph 31 in the case of J.S. Yadav, (2011) 6 SCC 570 [as per B.S. Chauhan J.] does not even follow from the authorities referred to therein. We have explained the authority in J.S. Yadav and opined that it has to rest on its own facts keeping in view the declaratory relief made therein, and further what has been stated therein cannot be regarded as a binding precedent for the proposition that in a case of removal or dismissal or termination, a subsequently appointed employee is a necessary party.
In a case which relates to a post or position or a vacancy, if he or she who holds the post because of the vacancy having arisen is allowed to be treated as a necessary party or allowed to assail the order, whereby the earlier post holder or allottee succeeds, it will only usher in the reverse situation – an anarchy in law.”
– Hon’ble Justice D. Misra, Poonam v. State of UP, [Civil Appeal No. 6774 of 2015].