1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 393 OF 2009 Smt. Jyoti P. Madye. ... ... Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ... ... Respondents. Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/by Smt. Vidya Bandekar for the Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17th April, 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application No. 1307 of 2007 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches as well as on merits. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner approached the Tribunal late are not correct. It is contended that the petitioner in the year 2004 submitted the representation in respect of the claim made by the petitioner for grant of 2 deemed date with effect from 18th April, 1991. It is stated that the said representation was rejected in the year 2006 and therefore the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2007. It is, therefore, contended that there was no delay as such caused in approaching the Tribunal by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that rejection of the Original Application of the petitioner by the Tribunal on the ground of delay and laches was not proper and the order impugned, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that even the findings recorded on merits are also not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner placed on record the certificates dated 8th February, 1989 and 20th October, 1989 issued by Padhye’s Shorthand & Typewriting Institute recognised by the State Government. These certificates show that the petitioner was in a position to take down dictation at 80 and 100 words per minute respectively. It is contended that the requirement was of minimum speed of 80 words per minute in Marathi (shorthand) required for the promotional post of stenographer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the petitioner, therefore, was eligible to be considered for the promotional post and was also eligible for the deemed date with effect from 18th April, 1991. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 3 6. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the cause of action arose in the year 1991. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner made a representation claiming deemed date of promotion by submitting representation in the year 2004 with effect from 1991. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner was well aware about her claim in the year 2004 itself. If the cause of action has arisen in the year 1991, it was necessary for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal within the stipulated period, at least within the reasonable time. In any case, the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal in the year 2004. However, in the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the petitioner did not approach the Tribunbal till the year 2007 and therefore the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the Original Application suffered from delay and laches, according to us is just and proper and is sustainable in law. Secondly, the petitioner also did not file any application for condonation of delay in order to justify inordinate delay caused in approaching the Tribunal. 7. Since the Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the case of the petitioner on merits. However, since the Tribunal has made observations on merits, we have also considered the issue on that count. It appears that under the rule, the speed required was 80 words per minute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner 4 appeared for the relevant examination, though the petitioner has submitted the certificates issued by the Institute recognised by the Government which the Tribunal refused to place reliance, in our view rightly. In the circumstances, the findings recorded by the Tribunal even on merits are sustainable in law. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)