1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.396 OF 2009 ... Santosh Govindrao Koyle age 24 yrs, Occ. Nil, r/o Ravangaon, Tq. Udgir, Dist Latur. ...PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Secretary, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Shikshan Sanstha, Satala (B), Tq. Udgir, Dist Latur. 2- The Head Master, Chhatrapati Shahu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Satala (B), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 3- The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Latur. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri. A.V.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.J.Godbole Adv. for R-2 Shri D.N.Chamle Adv. For R-1 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 9th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2- By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.08.2008 vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected. 2 3- Shri Patil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the appeal h as been dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merit which is not permissible in view of the view taken by the Court in case of Madhao s/o Somaji Sarode V/s Jyotiba Dhyan Upasak Shikshan Sanstha Dudhala and others reported in 2004 (4) Mah L R 227. 4- Shri Godbole the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submits that there is no merit in the case of present petitioner and as such the appeal was rightly rejected. 5- This Court in the case of Madhav Somaji Sarode cited supra has held that : “when it is revealed that there is delay in filing appeal, the memorandum of appeal cannot be rejected on ground that application seeking condonation of delay was not accompanied with the appeal memo. Opportunity has to be given to the appellant to seek condonation of delay.” This Court in the said case has further held that, While considering the aspect regarding condonation of delay, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to reject the appeal on the ground that it is not accompanied by the application for condonation of delay. “It can be seen from sub-section (3) of section 9 that the power is given to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal may entertain an appeal made to it after the expiry of period of thirty or sixty days, as the case may be, if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. It can thus be seen that a formal application for condonation of delay is also not necessary.” 3 6- In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. School Tribunal. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal shall decide it first. It is further made clear that after the decision on the application of condonation of delay, the learned Tribunal will proceed further to hear appeal on its own merit. Taking into consideration the facts, the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal is directed to decide the application and the appeal if remained to be decided within a period of three months from today. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp396.09.odt