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".;