1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2586 OF 2009 Smt. Ashmita Moreshwar Ranjanikar ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.M. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr.A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs.A.A. Agarwal for Respondent No.3. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 3, 2009 P.C. : 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondents. 2 By this petition, the petitioner is challenging order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.11.2008 whereby the application for condonation of delay filed by the present petitioner was rejected and her said appeal was not heard on merits. 3 It is the case of the petitioner herein that she was appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the Junior College for a period of three years by the respondent by issuing letter of appointment dated 30th September, 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that when she was not 2 allowed to resume her duties in the respondent no.4 college on 7.6.2007, she made representation to the Deputy Director as well as the Education Officer and from June 2007 to September 2007, she was advised to take bed rest on account of her backache. 4 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and observed that the explanation given by the petitioner for condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal was not sufficient. The Tribunal observed that two certificates of her treatment after 15.9.2007 were not produced by her. Secondly, the Tribunal observed that though the petitioner claimed to have sent representations to the department, the said applications Exhibit 4/7 and Exhibit 4/8 did not bear the date on which the said applications were filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner and the delay was not inordinate. It is submitted that on account of her ailment from June 2007 to September 2007, she was unable to file appeal during this period and thereafter, she had made representations to the Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education and only after she was informed by the Education Officer that the remedy was to file appeal under Section 9 before the School Tribunal, the said appeal was filed along with the application for condonation of delay. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal had erred in not condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal. 3 5 Mrs.Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the said submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner was a temporary employee and her services had, in fact, come to an end at the end of the academic year from 1.5.2007. She submitted that no explanation has been given by the petitioner for not filing the appeal from 1.5.2007 to 7.6.2007. She further submitted that the petitioner also has not made the teacher who is appointed in her place as party respondent and the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of proper and necessary party. She further submitted that the Deputy Director of Education had not granted approval to her appointment. She invited my attention to the order passed by the concerned authority refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. She, therefore, submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 The Apex Court and this Court on number of occasions has observed that hyper technical approach should not be taken by the courts while considering the application for condonation of delay and if sufficient cause is shown, in that event, delay should be condoned and the case should be heard on merits. 7 The petitioner in her application for condonation of delay 4 has stated that when she made an attempt to join the duties from 7.6.2007, she was not permitted to join her duties. The period of limitation, therefore, in my view, would commence from 7.6.2007 and not from 1.5.2007 as submitted by the Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner was working in the said school since 2001 and therefore, it cannot be said that her services had come to an end on 1.5.2007. The explanation given by the petitioner for not filing appeal during the period of limitation, in my view, is sufficient for condoning the delay of eight months in filing the appeal. She has stated that from 15.6.2007 to 15th September 2007, she was suffering from backache and she was advised to take complete bed rest for the said period. She has annexed the medical certificates for the said period. It is not the case of the respondent that the medical certificates are bogus. The petitioner, therefore, in my view, has given sufficient explanation for not filing the appeal from 15.6.2007 to 15.9.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education. It is no doubt true that the representation which is made does not bear the date on which the said application is made. However, there is no dispute that in fact, the said application had been preferred by the petitioner herein and only after she was informed by the Education Officer that her remedy was to file appeal, thereafter, she approached the School Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, in my view, was diligent after she recovered from the ailment and had approached the Deputy Director of Education. The Tribunal, therefore, in my view, has erred in not condoning the delay of eight months in filing the appeal. The 5 impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside and quashed. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 8 Writ Petition, accordingly, is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)