JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicants herein – original respondent Nos.1 to 4 requesting to condone the delay of 158 days caused in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1815/2012 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said Special Civil Application and has directed the applicants herein – original respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the case of the original petitioner for the deemed date of promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Education) after ignoring the remark “good” in the Annual Confidential Reports for the period between 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-2003 with effect from 06.09.2007 and consequently to grant all consequential benefits which shall accrue to the original petitioner including the retiral benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled in accordance with law. 2. We have heard Shri Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants. At the outset it is required to be noted that there is a delay of 158 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal. On considering the averments in application in support of the prayer to condone the delay, it cannot be said that sufficient cause has been shown and/or delay has been sufficiently and properly explained. In para 2 except sending appeal from one department to another department, nothing further has been averred. Under the circumstances and considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 as well as another decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Thro’ Executive Engineer & Another vs. Amar Nath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 , the present application for condondation of delay deserves to be dismissed. 3. Even to satisfy ourselves whether there is any prima facie case and/or merit in the appeal, we have heard Shri Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants. We have also considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Even to satisfy ourselves whether there is any prima facie case and/or merit in the appeal, we have heard Shri Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants. We have also considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. At the outset it is required to be noted that whether the remarks “good” in the Annual Confidential Reports can be said to be adverse remarks is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal vs. Chairman, UPSC & Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC 3057 . At this stage it is required to be noted that vide Notification dated 29.10.2005, confidential reports for the last years preceding the date of constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose would be relevant. As per the said promotion policy, out of 8 years, the employee must be graded as “outstanding” or “very good” atleast for 5 years. It is required to be noted that prior to 29.10.2005, there was no such policy. The position of the original petitioner was as under: Year Duration Evaluation of Reporting Officer Evaluation of Reviewing Officer Remarks 1998-99 1/4/98 to 5/11/98 6/11/98 to 31/3/99 Good Very Good -Very Good Reporting and Reviewing Officer is same 1999-2000 1/4/99 to 20/5/99 Certificate Good Evaluation Report 21/5/99 to 20/5/2000 Good 2000-2001 21/5/2000 to 23/7/2000 24/7/2000 to 25/2/2001 Good Very Good Good Very Good Evaluation Report Evaluation Report 2001-2002 26/2/2001 to 2/05/2001 21/5/2001 to 28/2/2002 1/3/2002 to 31/3/2002 Very Good Very Good Certificate Very Good Evaluation Report Evaluation has not been done due to retirement of Reviewing Authority 2002-2003 1/4/2002 to 31/3/2003 Good Good 2003-2004 1/4/2003 to 31/11/2003 1/12/2003 to 31/3/2004 Good Good Outstanding Outstanding 2004-2005 1/4/2004 to 31/3/2005 Very Good Very Good 2005-2006 1/4/2005 to 31/3/2006 Good Adverse Note Decision is made on 12/12/2006 to cancel adverse note [3.1] It is required to be noted that the remark “good” in the respective Annual Confidential Reports were not communicated to the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal (Supra), the learned Single Judge has allowed the present petition and has directed the appellants herein – original respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for deemed date of promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Education) after ignoring the remark “good” in the Annual Confidential Reports for the period between 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-2003, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error. Even the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. P.L. Raval and Others rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1498/2016. Under the circumstances, the present Letters Patent Appeal lacks merits and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to condone the delay and thereafter to dismiss the appeal which otherwise lacks merits. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of dismissal of Civil Application for condonation of delay, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.2670/2017 and Civil Application (Stamp) No.17092/2017 also stand dismissed on the ground of limitation.