Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.10301 of 2002, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for the issue of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner on par with the other candidates whose names were included in the promotion list, dated 112. 1987 with all attendant monetary benefits, was dismissed. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side and also looked into the affidavit filed in support of the original writ petition and also the counter affidavit along with the grounds on which the order is challenged. 3. The case of the appellant/the petitioner in the writ petition, in short, is that he joined as a Casual Labour in the respondent Corporation in the year 1968 and thereafter, he was promoted at different stages and he was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the year 1986 and further promotion was granted to him purely on merit and experience. A promotion list to the post of Senior Transport Overseer was published on 112. 1987, but it was not served upon him. He was appointed as Transport Overseer with effect from 212. 1986 and others were promoted as Senior Transport Overseer with effect from 11. 1986. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not promoted though there were no disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending against him; that when equally placed persons were promoted as Senior Transport Overseer, he was not promoted and that had he been promoted like that, he would have got all benefits and under these circumstances, it has become necessary to file the writ petition for direction to the respondents Corporation. 4. The counsel for the respondents Corporation, inter-alia, has stated that it is true, the petitioner joined the service of the Corporation in the year 1968 and he was appointed as Transport Overseer/Trainee with effect from 212. 1986; that his post was actually regularized in the category of Transport Overseer with effect from 01.01.1988; that since then, the petitioner has been given time bound promotion; that with effect from 01.01.2004, he was working as Chief Transport Overseer/Selection Grade; that the petitioners name was included for promotion as Senior Transport Overseer in proceedings dated 112. 1986; that his post was actually regularized in the category of Transport Overseer with effect from 01.01.1988; that since then, the petitioner has been given time bound promotion; that with effect from 01.01.2004, he was working as Chief Transport Overseer/Selection Grade; that the petitioners name was included for promotion as Senior Transport Overseer in proceedings dated 112. 1987 with effect from 01.03.1987; that by subsequent order, dated 05.01.1988, the said order designating the petitioner as Senior Transport Overseer was cancelled as it was realised that the said promotion order in respect of the petitioner was issued erroneously; that it was also served upon him; that number of representations were made by him and they were replied then and there and that for two reasons, the petition was to be dismissed. The first ground was the latches and secondly, who were all seniors to him were promoted and hence, he could not claim seniority over and above them and therefore, the petition was to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the submissions and considering the materials available, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner could not get the relief, since it was not a fit case to grant the relief and accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved over the same, this writ appeal has been brought forth by the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the instant case, there was no latches at all; that the proceedings designating him as Senior Transport Overseer was cancelled in 1988 and it was not served upon him; that the representations were pending consideration and that finally, the order of rejecting the representations was made in the year 1999 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and under these circumstances, there was neither delay nor latches. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, equally placed employees were actually promoted; that there was no reason for such cancellation order being made and under these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside and the writ appeal has got to be allowed, granting the relief. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions placed before the learned Single Judge, which were recorded above and would further submit that the petitioner retired from service in the year 2005. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions placed before the learned Single Judge, which were recorded above and would further submit that the petitioner retired from service in the year 2005. 8. The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. It is not in controversy that the petitioner, who joined service in the year 1968, was working as Junior Assistant in the year 1986 and subsequently, he was appointed as Transport Overseer/Trainee with effect from 212. 1986. According to the writ petitioner/appelant, he should have been promoted as Senior Transport Overseer from 1987, but not done so. It is well admitted by the respondents Corporation that a promotion list has been prepared and the name of the petitioner/appellant was also included in the list for Senior Transport Overseer, but the order designating him as Senior Transport Overseer came to be cancelled by an order dated 05.01.1988. It is pertinent to point out that number of representations were made by the petitioner and they have also been repeatedly answered and reminders were also made and they were answered in negative. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that rejection was finally made in the year 1999 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and there was no latches at all cannot be countenanced. In the instant case, the order of cancellation of the order designating the appellant as Senior Transport Overseer came to be issued in the year 1988 and the representation was made in the year 1991, but the writ petition has been filed after nearly about 11 years, which cannot but be termed as latches. 9. Further, the other contention is that the equally placed persons were promoted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, from 2. 2004, the appellant was working as Chief Transport Overseer/Selection Grade and he retired in the year 2005. 9. Further, the other contention is that the equally placed persons were promoted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, from 2. 2004, the appellant was working as Chief Transport Overseer/Selection Grade and he retired in the year 2005. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that having accepted the cancellation order of the year 1988 and also after obtaining all the time bound promotions from 1992 onwards as Senior Transport Overseer Grade-II with effect from 01.01.1992, Senior Transport Overseer Grade-I with effect from 01.01.1996, Chief Transport Overseer from 01.01.2000 and the Chief Transport Overseer/Selection Grade with effect from 01.02.2004, now the appellant/petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he should have been promoted in the year 1987 itself and that too after a latches of 11 years from the time of rejection of the representations, as referred to above. Hence, the writ appeal does not carry any merit whatsoever. 10. In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.