JUDGMENT Suresh Chandra is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 20.1.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 16550 of 2014 (Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others) dismissing the writ petition on the ground of latches. 2. Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rama Kant Dubey, Advocate, contended before us that there has been no delay and latches and unnecessarily writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of latches. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that on its face value there is delay and latches and, as such, no interference be made by this Court. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation that is so emerging in the present case is that petitioner appellant had filed writ petition no. 3136 of 1992 whereby he has proceeded to assail the validity of the order dated 12.11.1991 by which his promotion on the post of Work Supervisor was cancelled. The said order was quashed by this Court by allowing the writ petition as it was an ex-parte order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner appellant and mention has been made that quashing of this order would not entitle the petitioner to continue on the promotional post unless the Superintending Engineer, Jhansi decides the case of petitioner appellant on merits vis-a-vis having regard to the claim of respondent no. 6. Thereafter claim of petitioner appellant for promotion was considered and same was rejected vide order dated 6.3.2006. 5. This is accepted position that the order dated 6.3.2006 has not at all been challenged independently and contrarily petitioner appellant has come with the case that he has filed miscellaneous application in earlier writ petition i.e. writ petition no. 3136 of 1992 but same was not traceable in the office and, thereafter, he has filed another miscellaneous application dated 22.5.2012 which was not listed by the office on the ground that it is only on filing of the recall/modification/restoration application, the case can be listed and, thereafter, recall application no. 288457 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner appellant in the already decided petition and the said application was dismissed. 288457 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner appellant in the already decided petition and the said application was dismissed. Once such has been the factual situation that there was nothing on record to show and indicate that any application has been moved on 25.11.2006, as was claimed by the petitioner appellant and validity of the order dated 6.3.2006 has not been questioned earlier before filing of writ petition in the year 2014 and miscellaneous application was moved on 22.5.2012, then to say that there has been no delay and latches, cannot be accepted by us. Once such has been the factual situation on delay front then rightly the claim of petitioner appellant has been turned down by the learned Single Judge on latches. 6. Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, has lastly contended that on account of passing of the order dated 6.3.2006 claim of petitioner appellant for future promotion has not at all been considered whereas petitioner appellant falls in the zone of consideration and vacancies are also in existence. 7. In view of this, in case, in future promotional exercise is to be undertaken and petitioner appellant fulfills the pre-requisite eligibility criteria for being considered for promotion and falls within the zone of consideration, then his claim in question be also considered as per the rules. With this liberty, present special appeal is disposed of.