1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1971 OF 2009 Ratnaprabha d/o. Hanumanprasad Shukla ....Petitioner. Versus The Secretary, Shyamlal Memorial Education Society, Taluka Udgir, Dist. Latur & others ....Respondents. Shri. H.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. M.P. Gude, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 6th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition is preferred by the employee, challenging the order dated 2.7.2008, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad. By this order, Misc. Civil Application No. 27/2007 filed by the petitioner, seeking condonation of delay caused in filing an appeal under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has been rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. 2 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 8th June 2009. Shri. M.P. Gude, the learned counsel appears for respondent No. 1/management. The learned A.G.P. Shri. V.G. Shelke appears for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Although the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are served, none appears for them. 3. The petitioner had filed an appeal under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, challenging her termination by declaration dated 15.4.2005 published in newspaper. There was delay of about 862 days caused in filing an appeal, as the appeal was filed on 16.10.2007 and the period of limitation prescribed under the Act is of 30 days from the date of termination. Hence, the application for condonation of delay was filed. That was registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 27/2007. 4. In that application, it was alleged that the petitioner was knowing that her services were terminated on 15.4.2005 as per the declaration published in Dainik Mahila Ekjut at Udgir. However, she was assured by the management that her services and rights will be protected and she will be paid with the full arrears of salary. It was alleged that plea of assurance given by the management to the petitioner, who was in financial need, waited for fulfillment of such assurance of the management and when she lost faith in the management, she approached the Tribunal. Hence, the delay of 862 days was caused in 3 filing an appeal, as the petitioner was under the impression that she was being taken back in the service and was being paid with the arrears of salary. 4. The respondents filed their reply and opposed the application for condonation of delay. It was the stand taken that no case was made out for condonation of inordinate delay of 862 days caused in filing the appeal. 5. The Tribunal, by its order dated 2.7.2008 rejected the application for condonation of delay. It was held that no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay and the reason put forth was not accepted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Joshi has urged that by an order dated 11.4.2005 the services of about 75 employees were terminated, out of which, more than 60 employees had approached the College Tribunal, challenging the termination effected by publishing the said declaration in newspaper on 15.4.2005 and the Tribunal allowed their appeal by granting reinstatement and backwages and this order is the subject matter of writ petition filed by the management, which is pending before this Court. The learned counsel further urged that the petitioner acted on the assurance given by the management that the petitioner shall also be paid with the backwages and shall be absorbed in the services of the respondent society in other colleges run by the 4 respondent society and therefore, she did not prefer an appeal. 7. After going through the application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that the petitioner was aware of the termination of service effected from 15.4.2005. Although it is stated that the respondent management assured the petitioner that she will be taken in service and her rights will be protected by paying arrears of salary, there are no averements in the application that the respondent society is running several other colleges and the assurance was for absorption in any other college run by the society. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that when the services of petitioner were terminated by giving declaration in newspaper on 15.4.2005, on the ground that the college of engineering in which the petitioner was employed was closed down. The theory of assurance by the management to take the petitioner back in service is not accepted. The Tribunal has held that the inaction on the part of the petitioner is definitely fatal and no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. While passing an order, the Tribunal has taken into consideration various decisions of the Apex Court, wherein it has been laid down that the expression “sufficient cause” has been liberally construed. The Tribunal, however, recorded a finding that in spite of construing the expression “sufficient case” liberally, no case is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the application has been rejected. In view of this, the discretion exercised for rejecting the application for condonation of delay, cannot be interfered with. 5 8. In the result, there is no substance in this petition. The same is therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp1970.09