JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is for quashing the notification bearing the No. 2493 dated 30.04.2015, whereby and whereunder ignoring the case of the petitioner, other 16 Additional Public Prosecutor have been granted promotion as Public Prosecutor. 2. The case of the petitioner is that all 16 persons, who have been promoted as Public Prosecutor, are junior to the petitioner but his case has not been taken into consideration, hence this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State on 21.04.2016, wherein reason has been assigned that vide Minutes dated 23.04.2015, the case of the petitioner was considered but due to non-forwarding of his Annual Confidential Report (in short ACR) for 5 years, the duly constituted Department Committee has not considered the case of the petitioner and therefore, there is no illegality in the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner although has challenged the notification dated 23.04.2015 on the ground that all the 16 Additional Public Prosecutors are junior to the petitioner but they being the necessary parties have not been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition and in their absence, no order can be passed against them. It has further been submitted by Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned SC-II appearing for the respondent that there is a still vacancy and even though they are not the party in the writ petition, direction may be issued upon the State-respondent to consider his case for promotion considering the fact that the petitioner in the meanwhile has retired from service and only monetary benefit is required to be extended in favour of the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the stand taken in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, the fact, which is not in dispute, in this case is that the petitioner being aggrieved with the notification dated 23.04.2015 whereby and whereunder while considering the case to fill up the post of Public Prosecutor in the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,100/-with Grade Pay of Rs. 15,600-39,100/-with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, the petitioner's case was not considered by the departmental promotion committee, although out of 22 Additional Public Prosecutor, who were under zone of consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee, 16 of them have been found to be fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee and therefore, they have been granted promotion as Public Prosecutor vide notification dated 23.04.2015. The petitioner being aggrieved with the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee is before this Court assailing the same on the ground that he being senior ought to have been considered for promotion as Public Prosecutor but ignoring his case, 16 junior Additional public prosecutor have been granted promotion. 5. It is evident from the counter affidavit that as per the requirement of rule, 5 years Annual Confidential Report has to be assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee but the complete Annual Confidential Report has not been placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and hence Departmental Promotion Committee has not considered the case of petitioner for promotion as Public Prosecutor. 6. It is not in dispute that promotion is not a fundamental right. It is also not in dispute that the decision of Departmental Promotion Committee is not to be judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there is any arbitrariness on the part of the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee meaning thereby if the decision making process is illegal then only High Court can exercise its power of judicial reviewed in exercise of discretionary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is evident from the material available on record that the Departmental Promotion Committee has considered the case of petitioner but has found that the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner was not complete and as such, the case of the petitioner has not been found to be fit for promotion as Public Prosecutor. 8. The question is Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since it is no fault on the part of the petitioner, he has to suffer. Further he has argued that the petitioner in the meanwhile has been superannuated from service and hence, there is only question of monetary benefit. The same may be taken into consideration but the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Further he has argued that the petitioner in the meanwhile has been superannuated from service and hence, there is only question of monetary benefit. The same may be taken into consideration but the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Bhawesh Kumar is having no force that the Departmental Promotion Committee supposed to consider the age on the basis of recruitment rule to fill up the post. 9. This court is in submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is duty of the employer to forward the ACR, but question is that the notification has been issued on 23.04.2015, in which 16 Additional Public Prosecutor have been promoted as Public Prosecutor against the vacancies which were filled up for consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee was of 2014-15. Although it has not been disclosed but since the impugned notification has been issued on 23.04.2015 meaning thereby the vacancy would be either of 2014 or prior to the year 2015. The 16 persons, whose names are figured in the notification dated 23.04.2015, are, therefore, necessary parties and if this court will quash the notification dated 23.04.2015 without hearing the all 16 promoted Public Prosecutors, it will be against their interest and hence the aforesaid notification cannot be quashed in exercise of power for issuance of writ of certiorari. 10. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Indu Shekhar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others , reported in 2006 (8) SCC 129 wherein at paragraph-56 while considering the fact that the High Court without taking into consideration the fact that contested parties have not been made party to the proceedings whose inter se seniority was in dispute has held by taking aid of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that in their absence, High Court could not have determined the inter se seniority. 11. It needs to refer herein that the scope of interference of the High Court to issue writ of certiorari sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, as has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. 11. It needs to refer herein that the scope of interference of the High Court to issue writ of certiorari sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, as has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. (1964) 477 SC wherein at paragraph no.7 their Lordships have held as follows:- “The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or, where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 . 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the issue with respect to non impleadment of the necessary party. The reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2011 (6) SCC 570 wherein at paragraph-31 and 32, it has been laid down that no order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and if such order is passed, it is liable to be ignored being not binding on such party as the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Paragraph-31 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “No order can be passed behind the back of the person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Paragraph-31 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “No order can be passed behind the back of the person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The principles enshrined in the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide that impleadment of a necessary is mandatory and in case of non-joinder of necessary party, the petitioner-plaintiff may not be entitled for the relief sought by him. The litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. In service jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity.” 13. Judgment rendered in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. wherein at paragraph-41, it has been laid down that the candidates who are unable to get themselves selected and to raise the grievance and made application before the Tribunal by filing applications who have been joined as respondent in original application which was not done in any case, some of them ought to have been arrayed as respondent in the respective capacity, that has also not been done. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that in absence of opportunity of hearing of selected/appointed candidates, their selection/appointment could not have been set aside. 14. In view of the settled position as indicated hereinabove in the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the petitioners, although, are challenging the notification dated 23-04-2015 but none of the promotes whose names are there, have been impleaded as respondent and therefore making interference in the aforesaid notification would not be proper rather it will be against the principles of natural justice. 15. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari and it is settled law that the writ of certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. 15. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari and it is settled law that the writ of certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. 16. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors. reported in 1955 SC 233 wherein at Paragraph-21, which is quoted hereinbelow :- “With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari.” 17. This Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court declines to interfere with the same, accordingly, this writ petition, is hereby, dismissed. Petition dismissed.