1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1195 of 2009 Sunita Siddheshwar Shinde ..Petitioner vs. M/s Ware Educational Trust and others ..Respondents Mr.Dushyant Pagare i/b Mr.Mangesh Arote for petitioner. Ms.Bhavika S.Kawle i/b Mr.S.J.Panicker for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 24th August, 2009 P.C. 1 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 22nd April, 2009 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay. 2 According to the petitioner, her employment came to an end on 24th February, 2007. The limitation for filing the appeal 2 prescribed under section 9(2) of M.E.P.S.Act, 1977 is 30 days and hence she ought to have filed an appeal on or before 26th March, 2007. However, she moved the application for condonation of delay on 1st August, 2007. At the time of filing of the application for condonation of delay, she did not file the appeal memo and the same came to be filed only on 30th August, 2007. Therefore, there was a delay of about 5 months and 4 days. She has submitted a medical certificate from Mishra Clinic signed by Dr.J.S.Mishra, a homeopath dated 30th July 2007 stating that the petitioner was suffering from viral hepatitis, fever and weakness and was under his care and treatment between 23rd March, 2007 and 30th July, 2007.The respondents pointed out that viral hepatitis is a serious liver disease generally known as Jaundice . This can be detected by only clinical and pathological diagnosis. Except the medical 3 certificate the applicant has not filed any other document/s. The respondents also produced opinions of doctors that viral hepatitis can be diagnosed by clinical and pathological laboratories, usually by urine and blood tests. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties and the evidence placed before him has come to the conclusion that the medical certificate issued by Dr.Mishra is doubtful and the petitioner failed to show any bonafide or sufficient reason for condoning the delay. 3 The only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner before this Court is that earlier the Presiding Officer had considered the very same medical certificate and decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the petitioner had to be reminded that the earlier order passed by the 4 Presiding Officer was set aside by this Court by its order dated 16th September, 2008 in Writ Petition No.2036 of 2008 with a direction to consider the fresh application of the petitioner on merits leaving all contentions open. Therefore, it certainly cannot be contended that the Presiding Officer who had earlier taken a view in favour of the petitioner cannot take a contrary view in a fresh proceeding after the earlier order was set aside by this Court. 4 In my view the petitioner has not made out any case which calls for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)