WP/3661/1996 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3661 OF 1996 Shri Ishwara Shankar Jangam ... Petitioner V/s. Sangrul Education Society, Sangrul & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.3662 OF 1996 Shri Ashok Dattatraya Borge ... Petitioner V/s. Sangrul Education Society, Sangrul & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.895 OF 1997 Shri Ganpat Pandurang Nale ... Petitioner V/s. Sangrul Education Society, Sangrul & Ors. ... Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.899 OF 1997 Shri Gajanan Sripad Dandage ... Petitioner V/s. Sangrul Education Society, Sangrul & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.M. Joshi for Petitioners Mr.S.N. Bhosale for Respondent Nos.6 to 8 WP/3661/1996 : 2 : CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The Petitioners in this case were appointed as assistant teachers in the schools run by the respondent institution. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were appointed as headmasters in the 4 schools run by the institution in 1990. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Institution to appoint Respondent Nos.2 to 5 as the Headmasters, the Petitioners filed appeals before the School Tribunal on 5.5.1994. It was contended that the petitioners being senior to Respondent Nos.2 to 5, they ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of headmaster. According to the Petitioners, he they had been illegally superseded by respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2. The appeals were heard alongwith the applications for condoning the delay. The School Tribunal by the impugned order dated 11.4.1996, dismissed the appeals on several grounds. The School Tribunal has held that the appeals had not been preferred within the period of limitation prescribed in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation) Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. It has further held on merits that the promotions of respondent Nos.2 to 5 could not be set aside when they have been working in those posts for over 10 years. 3. Mr.Joshi, appearing for the Petitioners, takes exception to the order by contending that the Tribunal has committed a serious error by holding that the appeals are barred by limitation. He submits that insofar as an appeal in which an WP/3661/1996 : 3 : allegations made by the employee that he has been superseded, the limitation prescribed in the Act for filing an appeal u/s 9 is not applicable. He submits that at best, the Tribunal could have considered whether there was a delay disentitling the petitioners to any relief. The learned advocate further submits that the seniority list on which the institution relied was not in consonance with the Act & the Rules. A separate seniority list for schools being run on an aided basis was maintained and another for those which were run without grant in aid. The Tribunal according to the learned advocate has incorrectly held that the seniority list for the two types of schools which is to be considered is a separate seniority list and not a common one as required under law. He submits that had a common seniority list been considered as required by law, the result would have been different. He points out the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Anant Salwekar vs. Shri Namdeo Damodar Nazare & Ors., Writ Petition No.517 of 1993 decided on July 20, 1993 where the Division Bench considered Rule 12 of the MEPS Rules and the issue as to whether the seniority list should be common in respect of aided and unaided school run by the same institution. 4. Mr.Pakale had argued on Friday when the matter was part-heard that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in preferring the appeals. He had submitted that although the limitation as prescribed under the Act may not be strictly applicable, it would be necessary for the petitioners to establish that there was sufficient cause for approaching the Court after such an inordinate delay of 10 years. He had also submitted that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the delay cannot be called perverse and, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly dismissed the appeals. He then relies on a circular dated 29.6.1981 to submit that the Government had WP/3661/1996 : 4 : directed the institution to prepare separate seniority lists for its aided and non-aided schools and it was in compliance with this direction contained in the circular that a separate seniority list was prepared. He, therefore, submitted that the institution cannot be penalised for acting in accordance with circulars issued by the Government. 5. I have considered the arguments of both the Counsel. It is true that when an appeal is filed in respect of the supersession u/s 9(1)(b) of the Act, the limitation prescribed in subsection (2) of section 9 is not applicable. This has been so held in the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mohammad Hasan Khan vs. Mohammad Majidulla & Ors., 2002 (4) ALL MR 512. However, although the appeals need not have been filed within the period of limitation, in the present case it would be necessary to ascertain whether the petitioners had made out any case to establish that they had good reasons for approaching the Court after 10 years. The only reason mentioned for not approaching the Court as early as possible is that approval was granted to the appointments of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in March 1990 and not before that, although they continued to work in the posts from 1984. It is contended that thereafter the petitioners sought to get justice from all quarters and it was only when they failed that they approached the school tribunal. In my view, Mr.Pakale is right in his submission that, the finding of the Court regarding the inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court late is not perverse. The Petitioners were aware that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had been appointed in 1984. They were also well aware that although the latter did not possess the requisite qualifications in 1984, they were working in the post of Headmasters. Despite this, the petitioners chose to wait and not agitate their WP/3661/1996 : 5 : grievance. Further, even assuming that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were not qualified at that stage and were only holding the posts and were not permanently appointed to those posts, the petitioners were aware that in 1990, the appointment of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 was approved by the authorities. Despite this, the petitioners took no steps to approach the Court. Therefore, in my opinion, it would not be proper to grant any relief to the Petitioners as they have shown no reasonable cause for not approaching the Tribunal expeditiously. Ten years is a long period of time. There is no material on record as to what prevented the petitioners from approaching the Court during those 10 years. The Court cannot be expected to show indulgence to the indolent. In my view, therefore, the order of the Tribunal holding that the appeals have not been filed within limitation is incorrect. However, the appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 10 years which is unexplained and, therefore, the dismissal of the appeal must be upheld. 6. In view of my finding that no reasonable cause for agitating the grievances after 10 years has been placed on record, I need not go into the other issues as to whether a common seniority list ought to have been maintained. It is admitted by the petitioners that they did not ever challenge the seniority list pursuant to which Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were appointed or continued to work as Headmasters from 1984. 7. In these circumstances, the petitions are dismissed.