The court emphasized the importance of adherence to guidelines and the confirmation of an employee's status in determining eligibility for promotion.

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.

10.4 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 ot