1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3844 OF 2009 Prashant Shantaram Yeole, Age 37 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Near Bhavsar Galli Chowk, Erandol, District Jalgaon ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Nutan Mahila Sarvodaya Bal Vikas Sanstha, Pachora, District Jalgaon, through its Director, Smt. Madhavitai w/o Pratap Taware, R/o Deshmukhwadi, Pachora, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon. 2. Ekvira Madhyamik Vidyalay, Veruli (Kd.), Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon, through its Head Master 3. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon (Copy of respondent No.3 to be served through office of Government Pleader, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate holding for Shri V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent No.3 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final 2 hearing at admission stage. 2. In an unfortunate event, the petitioner - teacher with the management, lost his employment. He was wandering from pillar to post for justice, could not be benedicted. In the process, there is delay of virtually three years and seven months in preferring the appeal. To his application for condoning the delay, the management respondent did not advert to controvert. In spite of this, the learned Judge felt that there was no sufficiency of grounds illustrated by the petitioner and hence, rejected his appeal. The order of the learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, dated 23.3.2009 calls for interference as in paragraph No.6 thereof, three contradictory views are expressed by the learned Presiding Officer. He was conscious that the petitioner, teacher, was approaching the management authorities, even the authorities of the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Education Officer, the office bearers for considering his case and reinstating him. Two such applications were even referred by the learned Judge, however, he has spoken to demerits in the claim of petitioner to get the appointment. This was not expected of the learned Presiding Officer as he was called upon to travel to condonation application alone. Though the learned Judge has observed in paragraph No.8, there is nothing on record to show that there was response to these applications on the part of respondent. However, the learned Judge should have been alive and conscious that false assurances, which ultimately turned 3 hollow, were keeping the petitioner/ employee in lurch and wandering. Consequently, no fault could be attributed to the petitioner for waiting for a beneficial result from the management. The order of the learned Judge, not to condone the delay, is set aside. The delay of three years and seven months in preferring the appeal is condoned. Learned Presiding Officer will decide the appeal on its own merits within six months from communication. Petition allowed to the extent as above. Rule made absolute. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE