(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 136 of 2009 Asaram s/o. Bhimrao Shinde. .. Petitioner. versus Sukhdeo s/o. Tuljiram Jagtap & 3 Others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate, holding for Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2 / caveators. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th August 2008, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 61/2005, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in filing appeal challenging the alleged oral termination. (2) 2. There is a delay of almost four years in filing the appeal. 3. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was representing before the Education Officer throughout and had made inasmuch as fifteen applications. Not only this, he had also approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 1119/2005. 4. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered the matter and found that no justifiable reason was given for inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal. 5. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Tribunal has found that the petitioner was also Secretary of the Management. It has further been found that he was not a layman and could understand intrinsic of law. Apart from that, one another fact that needs to be noticed is that though the petition, being Writ Petition No. 1119/2005, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by this court by order dated 21st February 2005, even thereafter, he has not filed an appeal for a period eight months. The appeal has been filed after about eight months from the date of dismissal of the petition. No justifiable reason is given, as to why immediate steps were not taken for filing an appeal, even after dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In that view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the School Tribunal, has not been exercised in a perverse manner, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this (3) court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp136