1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2008 Sanjay s/o. Vishwanath Nanandkar. - Appellant age 36 years, occ. teacher, r/o. C/o. Madhav Telange Niwas, at and post Janwal, taluka Chakur, district Latur. versus 1. The Secretary, Jay Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Gangapur, taluka and district Latur. 2. Head Master, Vivekanand Vidyalaya, Gangapur, taluka and district Latur. 3. Satyashilan s/o. Govind Pinate, Asstt. Teacher, Vivekanand Vidyalaya, Gangapur, taluka and district Latur. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. - - - - - Respondents Shri H. V. Patil, Advocate for appellant. Shri R. J. Godbole, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 13th August 2009 2 PER COURT : 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge rejecting writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the application on hyper technical ground. He submits that since delay is only for 71 days, the delay ought to have been condoned. He further submits that learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. 3. Shri Godbole, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, submits that no interference is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Condonation of delay, being a matter of discretion of the learned School Tribunal, learned School Tribunal on the basis of the material before it has found that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for sufficient cause to condone the delay. From the perusal of the record, it would be seen that the learned Single 3 Judge has also found that the discretion by the learned School Tribunal was not exercised in perverse manner. In that view of the matter, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, disposed of. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/lpa14908