1 shh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4810 OF 2009 Gram Shikshan Samiti, Umrale, District Nashik & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Shri.Vilas V.Deore & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Kishor S.Patil for the Petitioners. Mr.M.N.Sandhyanshiv for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 4th August, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioners (original Respondent Nos.1 to 3) have preferred this petition challenging the judgment and order dated March 3, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik on an Application No.MISC./NSK/16/2008 which was taken out by the present Respondent No.1 herein (original Appellant), whereby the learned Presiding Officer allowed the said application and condoned of delay caused in filing the Appeal. 2. The appeal is filed u/s.9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Condition of Service) Rules, 1977 challenging the oral termination effected on June 4, 2008. 3. Mr.Kishor Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the first 2 respondent was appointed purely on temporary basis and that too for a specific duration. He invited my attention to the first appointment order dated June 30, 2001, whereby the first respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher for the period from 2.7.2001 to 30.4.2002 on temporary basis. By the subsequent order dated June 29, 2002, the first respondent was appointed for the period from 2.7.2002 to 30.4.2003. He submitted that after the second appointment order dated June 29, 2002 no appointment order was issued by the petitioners. He invited my attention to the letter of approval dated June 14, 2006 which gave approval to the appointment of first respondent for the period from 2.7.2001 to 30.4.2003. In the light of this, he submitted that the School Tribunal committed error in condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal on the premise that the delay was of two months. According to Mr.Patil, the delay is of five years and therefore the School Tribunal committed error in condoning the delay. 4. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 invited my attention to the fact that undoubtedly the first respondent worked as Assistant Teacher upto April 30, 2003. He was thereafter appointed as Shikshan Sevak from 2.7.2003 to 30.4.2004 and subsequently from 2.7.2004 to 30.4.2006. He also pointed out that the management had assured him that if he attends the interview for the post of Shikshan Sevak his services would not be disburbed. He invited my attention to the fact that he had made an application on July 8, 2008 under the Right to Information Act seeking information under the said Act. 5. The Tribunal considered rival submissions on the issue of period of delay 3 viz.whether the appeal was preferred after two months or after a period of five years as contended by the petitioners. In paragraph No.7 the Tribunal opined that the controversy between the parties on this aspect can be determined in the main appeal. Likewise in paragraph No.8 also the Tribunal opined that the issue of genuineness of the document may be considered in the main appeal. Thus the contention whether the first respondent worked after April 30, 2003 is not finally concluded by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal. 6. Relying upon the judgment in the case of Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil V/s.Godavaribai w/o.Laxmansingh Gahirewar, 1999 (2) Mh.L.J.272, the Tribunal has condoned the delay. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error of law apparent on the face of record or that the Tribunal’s approach was perverse. There is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Tribunal has condoned the delay and kept all the contentions on merits open. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present petition. Petition stands dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)