vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2008 Subhash Pandurang Rakte ... Petitioner V/s. Sharadabai Pawar Vidyalay & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.L. Patil for Petitioner Mr.A.M. Joshi for Respondent No.2 Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By this petition, the order challenged has been passed by the School Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal before it. The School Tribunal has rejected the application by concluding that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. In this case, the pettiioner had under the mistaken belief that the Education Officer has jurisdiction to decide whether the termination of service on 24.2.2006 is valid, approached the Education officer for redressal of his grievance. The Education Officer misguided the petitioner, assuming that he had the power to direct the management to withdraw the order of termination from service. Accordingly, the Education Officer issued letters to the managment on 20.7.2006, : 2 : 16.1.2007 and 3.2.2007. The Education Officer directed the management to withdraw its order of termination of service. The management has not withdrawn the order nor has it challenged the order of Education Officer because according to it, as contended by Mr.Joshi appearing for the management, the order was without jurisdiction and therefore not binding on the management. 2. It appears that by a letter of 14.3.2007, the Education Officer informed the petitioner that the remedy available to him was to approach the School Tribunal under the MEPS Act. This letter also mentions that the petitioner had been informed by the Education Officer on 21.12.2006 itself that the remedy available for him was to approach the School Tribunal. However, surprisingly, the Education Officer continued to issue letters to the management directing it to reinstate the petitioner. The appeal has been filed on 4.5.2007. 3. There is thus a delay in filing the appeal but in my opinion, the delay is not fatal to the cause of the petitioner. He had approached the wrong forum for the better part of a year after his services were terminated on 24.2.2006. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner should not be given any leeway inasmuch as the petitioner had chosen to approach the Education Officer for relief instead of : 3 : the School Tribunal and thereby has taken a chance in obtaining a favourable order from the Education Officer. The learned counsel submits that no premium should be placed on the conduct of such an employee who approaches a wrong forum knowingly and does not file an appeal within the stipulated time. 4. The aforesaid facts would indicate that the petitioner has no doubt approached a wrong forum but it cannot be said that it was done with a particular motive to obtain an order from the Education Officer knowing well that he did not have jurisdiction. The question of taking a chance, as Mr.Joshi calls it, does not arise. The last letter issued to the petitioner is dated 14.3.2007 and he has approached the Tribunal on 14.5.2007. In these circumstances, I see no reason why the delay ought not to have been condoned. 5. The petition is, therefore, allowed. No costs. 6. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal to be numbered and shall be heard on merits.