ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the communication order dated 13th November, 2002, whereby the order dated 16th January, 2002 has been communicated to the petitioner by the impugned order by which the petitioner has been denied out-of-turn promotion as recommended by the competent authority pursuant to some Government Order. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not given satisfactory explanation for approaching this court after a lapse of about one year. The only explanation that has been given is that the order has not been served on the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the order impugned in the present writ petition. Only the photo copy was served on the petitioner on 1st February, 2003. Since I am inclined to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this writ petition is entertained and I am not entering into the question of laches. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for denying the out-of-turn promotion to the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the learned single judge of this Court in Ashok Rana v. Home Secretary, U. P. Shashan, Lucknow and Ors. , 2000 (4) AWC 2889 : 2000 (4) ESC 2713, wherein the learned single Judge has observed as under : "from a perusal of the impugned order dated 1. 11. 1997, it would transpires that it assigns no reason as to why the petitioner, upon whom each one in the hierarchy had lavished praise for his exemplary courage, and bravery in gunning down the dreaded dacoit putting in Jeopardy his own life". ( 4 ) IN the present case, the impugned order clearly states as under :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the law laid down in the aforesaid decision do not apply to the facts of the present case. In my view, for claiming out-of-turn promotion the reasons already assigned in the impugned order do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my view, for claiming out-of-turn promotion the reasons already assigned in the impugned order do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then submitted that no opportunity, whatsoever, has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has miserably failed to demonstrate that under which provision of law, the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity. The order impugned in the present writ petition is wholly administrative in nature and it does not affect any right of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, rejected. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then submitted by citing annexures in the case of other persons, who, according to the contention made on behalf of the petitioner, were granted out-of-turn promotion whereas in the case of the petitioner, the same has been denied and thus, according (o the learned counsel, the order impugned is discriminatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures-22, 23 and 27 of the writ petition. A perusal of these annexures clearly demonstrate that these are the administrative decisions based on different facts of the case, therefore, the authorities have sufficient reason for not granting out-of-turn promotion to the petitioner in terms of the Government Order. The authorities have clearly stated that the action of the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner claims out-of-turn promotion do not come within the phrase "adamya Sahas Kee Shreni Me Nahi Aata Hai", ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on discrimination also deserve to be rejected and is hereby rejected. ( 9 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. .