S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal though has been filed with delay but the delay is not such so as to throw the appeal on the ground of limitation. In fact, the original order was passed on 6.1.05 by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter an application for recall was moved which was rejected on 3.10.05. Keeping in mind that the delay caused is as a result of bonafide advice given by the counsel, we condone the delay. Heard the counsel for the parties. It appears that the private respondent no. 5 filed a writ petition, being aggrieved by an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools issuing direction to the Manager of the Institution to promote the appellant and to cancel the promotion already given to the respondent. The writ petition was filed in the year 1985, which came up for hearing on 6.1.05. On this date, the learned counsel for the appellant then appearing, gave a statement that the appellant has already been promoted and on the assumption that both the parties have been promoted and there is no dispute, the writ petition was disposed of finally. On coming to know about the said order, the appellant moved an application for recall of the order dated 6.1.05 saying that, in fact, benefit of promotion, since has not been given to the appellant because of the stay order, therefore, the matter be heard on merits. THIS recall application was rejected on the ground that because of the change of counsel, the order cannot be modified. In case an interim order is passed in a writ petition and ultimately the writ petition is dismissed either as infructuous or on merits, the interim order merges in the final order and, therefore, after dismissal of the petition, the petitioner or for that matter beneficiary of that order cannot be allowed to avail the said benefit thereafter. In the present case, what has happened, is that there is a direction issued by the District Inspector of Schools for cancelling the order of promotion of the respondent and for promoting the appellant, against which writ petition was filed, but without adjudicating upon the issue as to whether the aforesaid order was legal and whether the respondent was rightly promoted or not, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the presumption that the appellant has already been promoted, whereas the appellant has not been given promotion, as he could not be promoted, unless the directions issued by the District Inspector of Schools were complied with. That being so the writ petition has been disposed of on the wrong assumption of fact. We, therefore, allow the special appeal and quash the orders dated 3.10.05 and 6.1.05. We direct that the writ petition be listed before the Bench having jurisdiction. Before parting, we would like to put on record that it was the duty of the learned counsel for the parties to put correct facts before the Court but knowing fully well the fact that the appellant has to be given promotion only in case directions of the District Inspector of Schools are followed, an impression was given to the Court that both the parties have been given promotion, which resulted into miscarriage of justice. Caution should have been taken by the counsel in making such a statement. The order passed in the writ petition filed in the year 1985, despite the writ petition being disposed of by the learned Single Judge, has not attained finality, the same being under challenge in appeal and on the special appeal being allowed, the parties stand relegated to the same stage which was in the year 1985.;