1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3293/2009 (Subhash Rambhau Billari ..vs.. Late Sanjay Gandhi Shikshan Mandal and others) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2009 Heard finally by consent of parties. Advocate Shri N.N.Motghare states that too technical view has been taken by the School Tribunal by refusing to condone the delay, which was bona fide and explained by the petitioner. Advocate Shri Patil states that the petitioner is not certain about the date of his termination. He further states that in Revision he has also pointed out that he was prohibited on 21/11/2008. According to him, in the circumstances when first revision after 16/8/2008 is itself made after about 2 months, the order passed by the School Tribunal cannot be viewed as erroneous. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3 also supports the impugned order. The petitioner was in service as per his 2 allegations from October 2004 till 16/8/2008. He has stated that he was prohibited from signing the attendance from June, 2008. Thereafter, he has pointed out some efforts/representations made by him. It appears that Deputy Director of Education visited the school, as per the story of petitioner, on 20/11/2008 and thereafter, petitioner again went to join the duties on 21/11/2008. He was not allowed to join the duties. It also appears that the petitioner made some representations to various authorities including police authorities for redressal of his grievance. It cannot, prima facie, be said that petitioner is not certain about his termination. In any case the alleged uncertainty can be pointed out by the Management before School Tribunal to show that there is no termination at all. However, that cannot be the reason to deny consideration of prayer for condonation of delay. I find that the School Tribunal has overlooked the efforts made by the petitioner to join back his services. It is also apparent that by delay, the petitioner was not to gain anything and there are no other circumstances pointed out to show that his application was malafide. The impugned order of School Tribunal dated 25/6/2009 is, therefore, unsustainable and 3 the same is quashed and set aside. The prayers made in Misc. Application No. 11/2009 are granted and School Tribunal, Amravati Division, Amravati, is ordered to register Appeal of the petitioner. It is made clear that the uncertainty as alleged by the management about the date of termination is kept open for consideration by it at appropriate stage. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale