1 wp3511-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3511 OF 2010 Balgonda Gurupad Viveke .. Petitioner Versus Dr.Shrinivas Janardhan Kashalikar and Ors. .. Respondents Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for petitioner Mr.Suresh M. Sabrad for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th September 2011. P.C.: 1] Head both sides. This petition is directed against an order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal refusing to condone the delay. According to School Tribunal there is delay of 2208 days in filing this subject appeal challenging supersession of the petitioner as Headmaster. 2] It is common ground that the petitioner was earlier terminated from the services way back in the year 1992 which termination was 2 wp3511-10.doc challenged by way of an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act (MEPS Act). That appeal was allowed by the School Tribunal in the year 1993. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal, the Management challenged it by filing a petition before this Court and this petition has been dismissed in the year 2002. Since the petitioner was reinstated in the services with continuity and other benefits, the petitioner applied for promotion to the post of Head Master. That the petitioner was orally informed that respondent No.5 to the present petition has already been appointed as Headmaster and his promotion order also came to be issued. The petitioner, therefore, requested that he be furnished with a copy of that promotion order but it is the case of the petitioner that he went on making representations but even a copy of the promotion order of respondent No.5 Ravindra Sawant was not furnished to him. The representations made by the petitioner to the management and the authorities have not met with any success and that is the reason for delay. 3] It appears from the record that the delay condonation 3 wp3511-10.doc application was opposed principally by the concerned Headmaster who superseded the petitioner. The management is under an Administrator appointed by the Education Department. The management did not seem to have objected to the condonation of delay. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner went on making representations and that the management did not furnish him with a copy of the appointment/ promotion order of respondent No.5. In such circumstances the Tribunal could not have taken a hyper technical view but ought to have condoned the delay in the peculiar facts of this case. The petitioner has been repeatedly fighting for firstly to protect his employment and thereafter to assert his right to be considered for promotion. In such circumstances and going by the conduct of the management so also it not denying the allegations and statements in the application for condonation of delay, this was a fit case where the delay should have been condoned. 4] Pertinently, before this Court also first respondent has been deleted because he has stated in the affidavit that he has nothing to do with the management and he has resigned. The Administrator 4 wp3511-10.doc has been served but there is no affidavit in reply. Petition is opposed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are essentially the employees aggrieved by the filing of the appeal. Merely because their promotion has been put in issue is no ground not to condone the delay, if the same is satisfactorily explained and the explanation is not found to be either lacking in bonafides or demonstrating utter negligence and complete inaction on the part of the petitioner. Finding that the same is not vitiated on any of these grounds but deserved acceptance, the delay is condoned. The petitioner states that he is unable to pay costs because although he is reinstated in the services his backwages are not paid nor any other benefits are given to him. 5] In such circumstances and when even the management is not opposing the application, no orders as to costs. The impugned order stands sets aside. The appeal will be restored and numbered and dealt with in accordance with law and shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)