1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2610 OF 2009 Raghunath Yallana Panhale, Age-48 years, Occu: At present Nil, R/o-Umerga (Retu), Post-Chera, Tq-Jalkot, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Latur Education Society, Latur Through its Secretary, 2) Head Master, Sant Tukaram Vidyalaya, Jagalpur (Bk.), Tq-Ahmedpur, Dist-Latur. 3) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. .... Mr.R.K. Ashtekar Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.S.V. Gundre Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Gunale Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Deelip Bankat Patil A.G.P. for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2009. 2 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 2nd February, 2009 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur below Exhibit 7 in Appeal No.33 of 2007. By this order, the Tribunal dismissed Petitioner's application for condonation of delay of 7 years and six months in filing Appeal under the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that his services were terminated by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 5th November, 1999. Thereafter the Respondent management has given him oral assurances to absorb in the services in future. Inspite of those assurances, the Respondent management failed to consider the Petitioner's case for recalling the order dated 5th November, 1999 of termination. It is the case of the 3 Petitioner that because of oral assurances from Respondent management, he waited for about 7 years and thereafter he approached the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Petitioner preferred application for condonation of delay dated 27th April, 2007. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply dated 29th December, 2008 and opposed the said application for condonation of delay. The School Tribunal dismissed the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay and therefore the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. It is clear that the Petitioner's services were terminated on 5th November, 1999 and thereafter first time he approached the Authorities under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 on 27th April, 2007. In his application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner stated in Para 3 that: "That the applicant say and submits that the respondent management has given him assurance to absorb him today 4 or tomorrow and taken oral assurance time to time from application not to come before this Hon'ble court, this will be the hard mistake done by the applicant to by putting the belief on the respondent management." 5. There is no other explanation in the entire application for condonation of such an inordinate delay. The Tribunal relied on the Authority in the matter of Executive President, Pune Vidyarthi Graha, Pune and others vs Bharaskar Bhagwant Yadav and others, reported in 2004 (4) All M.R. Page 798 and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Considering the application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay and the order passed by the School Tribunal, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition to interfere with the well reasoned order. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to the costs. Rule stands discharged. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/AUG09/wp2610.09