1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 172 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8537 OF 2009 The Secretary, Anjuma Tarraqui-e-Talim & Anr. ...Appellants. Vs. Ansai Ejaj Ahmed Mohammed Farooque & Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr. Kulkarni with Sandeep R. Waghmare, for the Appellants. Mr. N.R. Bubna, for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.M. Patane, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ..... CORAM : J.N. PATEL, Acting C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15thJUNE, 2010. P.C. 1] This Appeal challenges an Order dated 18.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.8537 of 2009. 2] By the Order under challenge, the Writ Petition preferred by Respondent No.1 employee has been allowed and the Order of the School Tribunal dated 19.8.2009 rejecting application for condoning delay in filing an Appeal has been set aside. 2 3] Shri Kulkarni appearing on behalf of Appellant Management contended that the learned Single Judge has not made any observations with regard to reasoning and the exercise of discretion of the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer by elaborate Order has discussed the alleged steps taken by Respondent No.1 employee for redressal of his grievance. The Presiding Officer has observed that there is a gross delay of 22 months and the First Respondent employee sat over his rights. Therefore, discretion was not exercised in his favour and rightly. The learned Single Judge was in error in interfering in such an Order and therefore the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4] The learned Single Judge in the Order under challenge has held that the Writ Petition is directed against the Order of the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Nasik refusing condoning delay in filing an Appeal. That Appeal was directed against the Order of supersession of the First Respondent employee by the Appellant Management. By following the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Secretary, Shiora Education Society Versus Presiding officer, School Tribunal & Ors, in Writ Petition No.1780 of 1989 reported in 1999(Supp.) Bom, C.R. 109,the learned Single Judge in the Order under challenge has observed that the law does not provide for any period of limitation for 3 filing such an Appeal. Once the law does not provide for such period of limitation, then, Appeal should be filed within reasonable time. 5] The learned Single Judge has held that if the complaint of the First Respondent employee is taken into account, then, cause of action arose on 1.7.2007. The First Respondent employee was pursuing remedy of filing a Writ Petition in this Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge, and thereafter he preferred Letters Patent Appeal which was also dismissed. True it is that these proceedings were not remedy of the First Respondent and he ought to have preferred an Appeal to the School Tribunal if he was aggrieved by the supersession. However, the learned Single Judge has observed that the delay cannot be said to be so unreasonable as would disentitle him from any discretionary relief. The learned Single Judge has held the Appeal can be said to be beyond time by 36 days i.e. the day which he reckons from the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. 6] We are not in agreement with Shri Kulkarni appearing on behalf of Appellant-Management that serious prejudice would be caused to the Management by condoning the delay. Further, that the First Respondent employee has retired from services is also no ground to refuse condonation of delay. Once, the learned Single Judge finds that the First Respondent employee was pursing a wrong remedy under Legal Advice and resorted to 4 the remedy in law after exhausting the same, then he cannot be said to be callous or negligent. Hence, discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge required no interference. We are of the opinion that the Order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmity or error apparent warranting interference in our appellate jurisdiction. 7] In the result, the Petition fails and it is dismissed. However, it is clarified that all contentions of both sides on merits are kept open. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)