ORDER : This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.3.2016 passed by respondent No.1 whereby respondent No.5 has been promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that on 4.3.2014 an advertisement (Annexure P/2) was issued for appointment on the post of Naib Tehsildar wherein it was clearly mentioned that the applicant must belong to Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-2 in Tahsil Office : Podi-Uproda, Distt. Korba participated in the departmental examination. However, subsequently, the petitioner came to know through Right to Information that respondent No.5, who was appointed as Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) in the District Election Department on 28.7.2011 (Annexure P/3) by way of creation of post by the Election Commission, has also been considered for appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar. The petitioner made an objection regarding eligibility of respondent No.5 for appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar. Thereafter, respondent No.4/Dy. District Election Officer vide letter dated 16.11.2015 informed respondent No.3/Collector that respondent No.5 is not included in the District Collector Cadre as per notification of the CG Election Commission and the said post is not included in the set up vide Annexure P/5. Despite that, the Collector overlooking the same, considered respondent No.5 as an employee of the Revenue Department. The petitioner made a representation on 23.11.2015 (Annexure P/8) for disqualifying respondent No.5 for appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar as he was not an employee of the Revenue Department but his representation was not decided till filing of the petition. However, respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 22.3.2016 promoted respondent No.5 to the post of Naib Tahsildar and posted at Distt. Koriya vide Annexure P/1. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 22.03.16 (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondent no.5 has been promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar with all consequential benefits. 10.3 To grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar with all consequential benefits. 10.3 To grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The petitioner is qualified and eligible but respondent No.5 who is not even an employee of the Revenue Department has been considered for promotion and promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar in violation of the guidelines issued by the CG Election Commission through notification that the post of Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) is a post created for specific purpose and the same is not included in the set up of the Revenue Department. Respondent No.4/Dy. District Election Officer also informed respondent No.3/Collector through letter dated 16.11.2015 that respondent No.5 is not included in the District Collector Cadre as per notification of the CG Election Commission and the said post is not included in the set up, despite that respondent No.3 overlooking the same and the objection raised by the petitioner, treated respondent No.5 as an employee of the Revenue Department and considered him for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. The action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, against the well settled principles of service jurisprudence and de horse the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 3/State submits that the instant petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.3.2016 (Annexure P/1) whereas only a single selected and appointed candidate i.e. respondent No.5 Shani Kumar Paikra has been arrayed as a party. All the selected and appointed candidates whose names are mentioned in the said order under clerical cadre are necessary party but they have not been impleaded as party respondent. Hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. All the selected and appointed candidates whose names are mentioned in the said order under clerical cadre are necessary party but they have not been impleaded as party respondent. Hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. After receipt of applications from the candidates including the petitioner and respondent No.5, complaints regarding disqualification of respondent No.5 for the post of Naib Tehsildar was made by one Anand Poddar, Assistant Grade-II, District Office, Korba to respondent No.1 on 30.9.2015 and taking cognizance on the aforesaid complaint, certain queries were made from the Collector, Korba vide letter dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure R/1). Thereafter, similar objection/complaint was also made by the petitioner on 9.11.2015 (Annexure R/2). Looking to the fact that there was no response on the said complaint, another similar objection/complaint was made by the petitioner vide Annexure P/8, upon which a reminder letter dated 10.11.2015 (Annexure R/3) referring to earlier letter dated 14.10.2015 was sent to the Collector, Korba seeking certain information as sought in the letter dated 14.10.2015. Thereafter, another reminder dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure R/4) was sent to the Collector, Korba. Vide letter dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure R/7) the Collector, Korba supplied the information as sought vide letter dated 14.10.2015 by enclosing the enquiry report prepared by respondent No.4 (Annexure P/5), in which it was categorically mentioned that the appointment of respondent No.5 was made on the post of Assistant Superintendent, Local Election, from the establishment of Revenue Department, therefore, in such circumstances, it is not proper and appropriate not to deem the respondent No.5 as an employee of the Revenue Department, meaning thereby that respondent No.5 has been treated as an employee of the Revenue Department and accordingly, the objection/complaint made as above deserve to be rejected. Hence the complaints were duly forwarded to respondent No.1 for necessary action. Based upon the aforesaid submission made by the Collector (Annexure P/7) and inquiry report (Annexure P/5), the objection/complaint made by the petitioner and one Anand Poddar were duly rejected vide order dated 9.12.2015 (Annexure R/5) which has not been challenged by the petitioner and therefore, the same has attained finality. 5. Based upon the aforesaid submission made by the Collector (Annexure P/7) and inquiry report (Annexure P/5), the objection/complaint made by the petitioner and one Anand Poddar were duly rejected vide order dated 9.12.2015 (Annexure R/5) which has not been challenged by the petitioner and therefore, the same has attained finality. 5. It is submitted that in the enquiry report, respondent No.4 duly informed that vide guidelines dated 9.1.2003 issued by the CG State Election Commission, the procedure for posting on the post of Assistant Superintendent, Local Election, was prescribed, copy of which is filed as Annexure R/6. As per the said procedure, a panel containing three names of suitable candidates having requisite qualification and experiences for consideration to the post of Assistant Superintendent was forwarded by the Collector and District Election Officer, Korba vide letter dated 3.4.2011 and in turn, vide order dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure R/7), respondent No.2 considering the parameters and procedure prescribed for posting on the post of Assistant Superintendent vide letter dated 5.10.2004 (Annexure P/6) accorded its approval provisionally. Thus, from a bare reading of the order dated 1.7.2011, letter dated 5.10.2004 and letter dated 16.11.2015, it would be evident that respondent No.5 has been provisionally given posting as Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) vide order dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P/3) and vide letter dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure P/7), the Collector has very specifically and categorically held respondent No.5 as employee of the Revenue Department and even vide letter dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P/5), respondent No.4 has also very categorically stated that the branch of Local Election comes under the Collector and District Election Officer. Hence respondent No.5 has rightly been promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar considering him to be an employee of the Revenue Department and as such, the instant petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 supporting the stand taken by the respondents/State, submits that this petition is without any merit and as such, liable to be dismissed. 7. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.5 despite service of notice. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 supporting the stand taken by the respondents/State, submits that this petition is without any merit and as such, liable to be dismissed. 7. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.5 despite service of notice. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In this case, it is not in dispute that respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar by order dated 22.3.2016 (Annexure P/1) and according to the petitioner, since respondent No.5 is not working in the Revenue Department, he is not entitled for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. Annexure P/3 is the order dated 28.7.2011 whereby respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) provisionally until further orders, which reads as under: ^^dk;kZy; dysDVj ,oa ftyk fuokZpu vf?kdkjh] dksjck ¼NRrhlx<-½ vkns'k dzekad@364@LFkk-fuokZ-@ys[kk@2011 dksjck] fnukad 28-07-2011 NRrhlx<+ jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx jk;iqj ds i= dzekad ,Q01&15@2004@,d@986 fnukad 01 tqykbZ 2011 dh vuq'kalk ds vk/kkj ij Jh ,l-ds-iSdjk] lgk;d xzsM&2 ftyk dk;kZy; ¼[kk| 'kk[kk½ dksjck dh inksUufr lgk;d v/kh{kd ¼LFkkuh; fuokZpu½ dksjck ds in ij osrueku :- 9300&34800@&xzsM osru :- 4200@& esa vLFkk;h :i ls vkxkeh vkns'k i;ZUr dh tkrh gSA ;g vkns'k rRdky izHkko'khy gksxkA ¼vkj-ih-,l-R;kxh½ dysDVj ,ao ftyk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh ¼LFkk-fuokZ-½ dksjck ¼NRrhlx<-½^^ Thus, from the aforesaid order it is clear that respondent No.5 was posted at District Collectorate (Food Branch) as Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) untill further orders. When complaint was made by the petitioner and another employee, queries were made from the Collector, Korba by the Under Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Raipur vide Annexure R/1 which reads as under: ^^NRrhlx< 'kklu jktLo ,ao vkink izca/ku foHkkx ea=ky; egkunh Hkou] u;k jk;iqj dzekad 2089@2063@2015@lkr&2 jk;iqj fnukad 04-10-2015 izfr] dysDVj ftyk & dksjck NRrhlx<- fo"k; %& Jh 'kfu dqekj iSdjk] lgk;d v/kh{kd] LFkkuh; fuokZpu ftyk dksjck dks uk;c rglhynkj ds in ij fu;qfDr ds fy;s vik= ?kksf"kr djus ckcr~A mijksDr fo"k;karxZr Jh vkuan iksrnkj] lgk;d xzsM&2] ftyk dk;kZy; dksjck ls Jh 'kfu dqekj iSdjk] lgk;d v/kh{kd ds fo:} dh xbZ f'kdk;r dh Nk;kizfr layXu izsf"kr dj] funsZ'kkuqlkj vuqjks/k gS fd d`i;k mDr f'kdk;r ds laca/k esa fuEu fcanqvksa dh tkudkjh vius vfHker lfgr foHkkx dks miyC/k djkus ds d"V djsa %& 1- D;k LFkkuh; fuokZpu esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh fu;fer :i ls fuokZpu ds fy, gh fu;ksftr gksrs gS\ 2- D;k ;s dysDVj ds v/khu ugha gS\ 3- D;k budh LFkkiuk jktLo foHkkx ds vUrxZr ugha vkrh gS\ layXu %& ;Fkksifj- ¼,Q dsjdsV~Vk½ voj lfpo NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] jktLo ,ao vkink izca/ku foHkkx^^ 10. In response to the above letter, the Collector, Korba after obtaining report from the Dy. District Election Officer, Korba and the relevant documents, vide letter dated 23.11.2015 (Annexure P/7) informed the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Raipur since respondent No.5 has been working on the post of Assistant Grade-3 and Assistant Grade-2 in the establishment under the Revenue Department and his promotion has been made to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) from the post of Assistant Grade-2 in the Revenue Department, in these circumstances, it would be inappropriate if he is not considered to be an employee of the Revenue Department. 11. It is clear from all the aforesaid documents that respondent No.5 is an employee of District Collectorate (Food Branch) and he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) on temporary basis until further orders. The Collector, Korba has clearly stated that he is an employee of the Revenue Department and accordingly, his name was considered for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. In view of the above, the promotion given to respondent No.5 to the said post is held to be in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the advertisement. 12. In view of the above, the promotion given to respondent No.5 to the said post is held to be in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the advertisement. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the present petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.