1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7177 OF 2008 Bal Sanskar Mandal Education Society, Yawal, Tq.Yawal Through its President Vasudeo Rajaram Wani and others PETITIONERS VERSUS Savita Ashok Gajare and another RESPONDENTS Mr.A.B.Madke, with Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners Mr.S.P.Brahme, advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.K.J.Ghutepatil, advocate for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 16/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik in application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against the oral termination by the present petitioners dated 27/03/2008, the present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. 2. Heard Adv.Madke for the petitioners, followed by the arguments of Advocate S.P.Brahme for the first respondent. 3. While assessing the order under challenge, my attention is 2 drawn towards the observations in para no.7 & 8 of the impugned order under challenge and it was urged across the bar that the alleged order of termination is dated 15/06/2007 and it is alleged in the application for condonation of delay that the written application- cum-representations were preferred before the petitioners who were respondents in the proposed appeal before School Tribunal. Some applications were directly submitted while some applications are sent by Post, but no copies of the postal receipts were on record. At the same time, it is alleged that the husband of the first respondent filed an application under Right of Information Act calling for certain documents which were received on 16/02/2008, even though applied on 08/12/2007, and thereafter the appeal was preferred after the delay of 1¼ month. Thus according to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, as accepted by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal that as the delay was not properly explained to the subjective satisfaction of the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, hence the present writ petition to be allowed by setting aside the order passed in the application for condonation of delay. 4. While opposing these submissions, it is urged across the bar by learned advocate appearing for the first respondent that the contents in the appeal memo clearly indicates that prior to oral termination, the first respondent was in service of the petitioners for more than 10 years. According to the first respondent, after the services of the first respondent were orally terminated, it is but natural as expected that an attempts were made by way of preferring the representations 3 before the authorities of the petitioner directly by communication in writing or by Post which is not a dilatory tactics to prolong the matter to challenge the order. These submissions require to be considered in view of the say filed in the application for condonation of delay by the respondents wherein there is a statement in para no.2 that there was no order of oral termination passed by the present petitioner. If it is so, then there is some force in the submissions of the advocate for first respondent about the theory of oral termination. It is but natural that an employee in the service of a School Establishment for more than a decade, before taking any legal action, some attempts will be made by way of representation for the re-instatement in the Education Institution. It is rightly pointed out by giving reference of the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2002 AIR SCW 978, in the matter of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others versus Gobardhan Sao and others. In para no.13 wherein it is observed that,”it must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of malafides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses.” Bearing in mind 4 this principle laid down in Ramnath Sahu’s matter and considering the observation of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, particularly in para no.7 and 8 of the order, I do not find that the explanation offered by the first respondent was not to the subjective satisfaction of the Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, as well as this Court. Hence, I find no fault in the order passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, while allowing the application for condonation of delay as, I do not find any fault in the order under challenge. Writ petition is devoid of any merits and require to be dismissed in limine. Hence writ petition rejected. No order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp7177-08