Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter dated 14.05.2010 of the Deputy Director, Tamilnadu Fire and Rescue Service, Central Division, Thiruchirapalli, by which promotion has been ordered to the post of Leading Fire-Man. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined Tamilnadu Fire and Rescue Services on 09.09.1996. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community and a graduate. According to him, he has rendered unblemished service for nearly 13 years. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents have called for the details for filling up 3 vacancies in the post of Leading Fire-Man and that the post has to be filled up by following rule of reservation. It is the further contention of the petitioner that candidates who are junior by him for 10 years have been selected. 3. The petitioner has further contended that the 2nd respondent has proceeded to select 12 candidates on the basis of number seniority, giving a go by to age-wise seniority as found in the enlistment register. In support of his contentions, he has relied on a circular dated 11.03.2008, issued by the Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue Service, Tamilnadu. 4. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that though he is senior and rendered unblemished service for the past 13 years and following number seniority, the 2nd respondent has selected many of his juniors for the promotional post of Leading Fire-Man. 5. The Deputy Director, Tamilnadu Fire and Rescue Service, Central Division, Thiruchirapalli, in his counter affidavit has submitted that rule of reservation is not applicable to the promotional post of Leading Fire-Man department and therefore, the contention to the contra has to be rejected. He has further submitted that the estimated vacancies for the post of Leading Fire-Man are 12 and therefore, considering the merit and ability of nearly 24 candidates, who were called for by the Promotion Board, the candidates were arranged in the order of merit. As per the approved list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.18. 6. The respondent has further contended that the list of promotion to the post of Leading Fire-Man is being approved every year and the number of Fire-Men fit for promotion to the above said category, is calculated every year based on the vacancies arising during that year. As per the approved list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.18. 6. The respondent has further contended that the list of promotion to the post of Leading Fire-Man is being approved every year and the number of Fire-Men fit for promotion to the above said category, is calculated every year based on the vacancies arising during that year. For the year 2010-2011, taking into consideration, the retirement, transfer, death and sanction of new post, etc., as per rules in force the number of vacancies was arrived at 12 and as the petitioner was placed at Serial No.18, his case was not considered for promotion. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Pleadings disclose that the estimated vacancies for the post of Leading Fire-Man for the year 2010-2011, taking into consideration, the retirement, transfer, death and sanction of new post, etc., the department has considered 24 candidates and after considering the inter-se merit and ability of the candidates, arrayed them in the order of merit. The petitioner has been placed at Serial No.18. Since the number of estimated vacancy was only 12, the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Leading Fire-Man. The contention that rule of reservation is not applicable to the promotional post of Leading Fire-Man in Tamilnadu Fire Sub-ordinate Services Rules has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments and therefore, there is no need to advert to the same. 9. Though, the petitioner has contended that out of 12 candidates selected for the post of Leading Fire-Man, many of his juniors have been selected, he has not chosen to implead anyone of the said persons in the present writ petition and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Useful reference can be made to few decisions. 10. In Ranbir Singh, HFS-II v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in 1996(1) SCR 157, the dismissal of a writ petition, challenging the inter se seniority, without impleading the other persons was confirmed by the Apex Court. 11. In Baskaran v. The Commissioner of College Education and 2 Ors. Useful reference can be made to few decisions. 10. In Ranbir Singh, HFS-II v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in 1996(1) SCR 157, the dismissal of a writ petition, challenging the inter se seniority, without impleading the other persons was confirmed by the Apex Court. 11. In Baskaran v. The Commissioner of College Education and 2 Ors. reported in 1996 (I) MLJ 32 , a Division Bench of this Court following the judgment of Prabodh Vermas case [ 1985(1) SCR 216 ], held that the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary and the persons who would be vitally affected by the decision are necessary parties. The Court should dismiss the writ petition, if necessary parties are not impleaded in the writ petition. 12. In yet another decision in Ramarao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors. reported in 2004 (I) LLJ 1061 SC, the Apex Court reiterated the legal position and held that ".... An order against the person without impleading him as a party and without giving an opportunity of hearing must be held to be bad in law. The appellants herein, keeping in view of the fact that by reason of the impugned direction, the orders of promotion effected in their favour had been directed to be withdrawn, indisputably, were necessary parties. In their absence, therefore, the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon. In the absence of the promotees as parties, therefore, it was not permissible for the High Court to issue the directions by reason of the impugned judgment." 13. Though, the petitioner has further contended that number seniority has been taken into consideration giving a go by to age-wise seniority in the enlistment register and placed reliance on a circular dated 11.03.2008, the said submission is not substantiated by materials. Further perusal of the impugned order also does not support the contention of the petitioner. In as much as the petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates and has chosen to challenge the approved selected list, this Court is on the prima-facie view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Further perusal of the impugned order also does not support the contention of the petitioner. In as much as the petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates and has chosen to challenge the approved selected list, this Court is on the prima-facie view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. As the rule of reservation is not followed in the post of Leading Fire-Man in Tamilnadu Fire Subordinate Service, the contention to the contra is liable to be rejected and for other reasons stated supra, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.