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. 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