1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7375 OF 2009 1. Shri. Sevadas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gandhinagar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded Through its Secretary, Shri. Narayanrao Ramkishan Jadhav, Age 53 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. Gandhinagar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. 2. The Headmaster, Primary Ashram School, Bijewadi, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. Govind s/o. Dasrao Chavan, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Nil., R/o. Chatori, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani. 2. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur Division, Latur. ....Respondents. Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. K.D. Bade-Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 15th June 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 in Appeal No. 8/2001. By this judgment and order, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 - employee has been allowed by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 22.6.1994 and reinstatement has been granted with continuity in service. 2. Shri. Bade-Patil, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1 and waives service of notice. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. Matter is heard finally by consent of parties. 3. The only challenge to the order impugned in this petition is that the appeal has been decided on merits, although there was delay in filing an appeal and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was not filed. Shri. Gunale, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004 (4) Mah.L.R. 227 in the case of Madhao s/o. Somaji Sarode Vs. Jyotiba Dhyan Upasak Shikshan 3 Sanstha, Dudhala and others in support of his proposition that the appeal cannot be adjudicated on merits without there being an application for condonation of delay and delay caused in filing an appeal is condoned. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri. Bade-Patil has however, urged that the Tribunal has discussed at length showing that there was sufficient cause for the respondent No. 1, not to prefer an appeal within a period of limitation and hence, after recording this finding, the appeal has been decided on merits. He further does not dispute that the limitation for filing an appeal is provided of 30 days from the date of the order of termination/dismissal and that the appeal has not been preferred within the period of limitation. He further submits that this will not deter the tribunal from adjudicating the matter on merits after recording its satisfaction about sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay. 5. Undisputedly, the period of 30 days has been prescribed by way of limitation for preferring an appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. Undisputedly, the appeal is beyond the period of limitation and the application for condonation of delay has not been filed. It is also not disputed that the appeal has been decided by the Tribunal on merits by setting aside the order of termination/dismissal and granted reinstatement to the employee in service. In this factual background, the 4 matter is no longer Res-integra in view of the decision of this Court cited supra. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained for want of application for condonation of delay and passing of an order, condoning the delay. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. 6. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the learned Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur in Appeal No. 8/2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the said authority with liberty to the respondent No. 1 - employee to file separate application for condonation of delay. Upon filing of such an application, the authority shall proceed to decide the same on merits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp7375.09