1 wp6381.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6381 OF 2010 Smt. Anita D/o Chunnulal Patil ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Upale Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V. Warad, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.P.P. for respondent no.3. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 21st March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. Petitioner before this Court was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 18.07.2005 and she completed tenure of three years on 17.07.2008. Complaining of termination on 18.07.2008, she approached School Tribunal in an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 in March, 2009 and sought condonation of delay of 217 days. She stated that after her termination, she was approaching an Organization for ventilation of her grievance and Organization also wrote to management for taking her back. She relied upon the communication dated 18.09.2008, 13.11.2008 and 12.01.2009 for this purpose. 3. The School Tribunal has refused to condone the delay after noticing that the approach to unregistered Organization was not 2 wp6381.10 sufficient, day to day delay was not explained and no steps were taken within a period of one month prescribed for filing of appeal. 4. Advocate Mr. Barlinge for petitioner is placing the reliance upon the reported judgment of this Court reported at "2011 A.I.R. SCW 1388" (Union of India V/s Giani), to urge that when after completion of service of three years, right accrued in favour of petitioner and she was trying to obtain redressal of her grievance by approaching the Organization, the delay deserves to be looked into sympathetically and as arguable case is made out, the School Tribunal should have entertain the appeal on merits. 5. According to learned Counsel Mr. Warad appearing for management all relevant aspects are looked into and hence there is no jurisdictional error. As there is no perversity, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He supports his contention by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported at "2007(1)Mh.L.J. 807 " (Kamalbai W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and another V/s Ganpat S/o Vithalrao Gavare). 6. It is not in dispute that appeal under Section 9 is required to be filed within 30 days. The petitioner claims to have been terminated by restraining her from signing muster roll from 18.07.2008. That period of one month expired on 18.08.2008. First representation made by her is much thereafter i.e. 18.09.2008. These representations are no doubt received by management and management is contending before this Court that the petitioner attempted to bring pressure on them through unregistered Organization. But then after 18.09.2008, the second representation is again made after more than one month i.e. 13.11.2008 and last 3 wp6381.10 representation is on 12.01.2009. Appeal is not filed again within one month of 12.01.2009. School Tribunal has considered these dates and has found that delay has not been properly explained. 7. All relevant aspects are looked into. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 8. The contention that right had accrued to petitioner and therefore the delay deserves to be condoned can not be accepted as not acting within limitation can always be valid ground to deny the right. Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp6381.10