1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 6606 0F 2009 *** Smt. Nanda Jayant Sane Versus Abhay Yuva Kalyan Kendra, Dhule-4 and three others *** Mr. V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. V. G. Shete, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4.. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner filed Appeal No.41 of 2009 before the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik along with an application for condonation of around 33 months delay occurred in filing the appeal, challenging her supersession. This application for condonation of delay, after hearing the parties, is rejected by the learned School Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 1st September, 2009. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. Mr. Hon, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the appeal filed by the present Petitioner before the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal was/ is under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (3 of 1978). According to him, section relevant prescribes the period of limitation only for the purpose of appeal against termination. In case of supersession, according to him, there is no limitation provided. However, such application will have to be filed within reasonable time. In support of this submission, Mr. Hone relies on a judgment of this Court in the matter of "Secretary, Shioraji Education Society, Wani V/s Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad and others" reported in 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 752. The view taken by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Secretary Shiorai Education Society (Supra) was upheld by the learned Division Bench of this Court in matter of "Mohammad Hasan Khan V/s Mohammad Majidulla and others" reported in 2002 (4) ALL MR 512. 5. Learned counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 made a two-fold submission. Firstly, the petitioner did not seek redressal of her grievance personally, either before the authorities of the education department or otherwise. All along she was trying to seek redressal through the organisation viz. Cast Tribe Shikshak Sanghatana. Secondly, learned Presiding Officer has considered the ground raised for seeking condonation of delay and finding that no convincing ground is established, rejected the application. He relied on a judgment of the learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of "The Executive President & Others V/s Bhaskar Bahagwant Yadav & others" 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. reported in 2001 (1) Bom. C. R. 159. 6. Counsel for the parties, invited my attention to the reasoning recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal. There is no dispute among the parties that the petitioner was/ is working with the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. There is no dispute pertaining to qualification of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner is belonging to Scheduled Caste category and promotional post of Head Master/ Head-Mistress was available for Scheduled Caste candidate. Eligibility of the petitioner was simply not in question is admitted by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. From para 7 of the judgment, it appears that on 1st September, 2006 respondent management promoted Respondent No.3, in that appeal, to the post of Head Master. Approval was accorded by the Education Officer on 2nd November, 2007. The School Tribunal also 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. records, since 15th July, 1996 the present petitioner was working with the management as an Assistant Teacher and was holding requisite qualification. All these entitlements of the petitioner have been recorded in para 7 by the learned Presiding Officer. 7. Crucial issue is pertaining to the explanation, if any, for delay of around 33 months. Length of the delay is not material. Sufficiency of the reason and material brought by the claimant, requires to be taken into consideration. In the case on hand, the learned Tribunal has elaborately considered the contentions raised on behalf of the present Petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner, which has been recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, is writ-large. During the relevant period, petitioner was transferred by the Respondent management. Within three days, the Tribunal records that 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the Petitioner rushed to the Civil Court with a suit. However, when it comes to supersession, the petitioner did not individually try to seek redressal from the authorities of education department. The Tribunal has recorded that the petitioner tried to ventilate her grievance through the organisation. So far filing of Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 2009 is concerned, by the petitioner, observation is made in para 14 of the judgment. Recording these findings, pertaining to conduct of the petitioner, in para 15, the Tribunal observed that the appellant was through out negligent even in pursuing the remedy before the education officer. In para 16, the Tribunal observed "... ... There is nothing on record to show that thereafter [16th of November, 2007], appellant [Petitioner in the writ petition] was individually seeking remedy before the Education authority or other authorities." 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. The Tribunal was not oblivious of the fact that all along petitioner was following the grievance through the organisation. Tribunal observes "No doubt, the documents produced on record, would show that the organization namely Caste Tribe Shikshak Sanghatna, Dhule has made some correspondence with the Education Officer and the Secretary of Education Department, but that does not mean that the appellant/ applicant (petitioner in the writ petition) was bonafide seeking remedy before the Education Officer or other authorities." With these findings, the Tribunal has also observed in para 12 that "the delay between 14th September, 2006 to 10th January, 2008 totally remained unexplained and rejected the prayer made. 8. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have taken into account the ratio laid down in the reported judicial 8 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. pronouncements, relied upon by the respective parties. 9. Status of the litigant requires to be considered, along with the sufficiency of the ground. I have considered, in the case on hand, a teacher aspiring for promotion of Head Master/ Head-Mistress, must be a graduate person working with the aided school. With this, I do not find substance in the writ petition. Order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal is reasoned, justifiable, legal and does not warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court. 10. Writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:25/02/2010. ans/6606