1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITON No. 5705 of 2011 Lok Shikshan Sanstha, Kingaon-Raja and another Vs. Anil Raosaheb Deshmukh and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Apurv De, Adv. for the Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 21 st November, 2011. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the School Tribunal on 15.10.2011 allowing an application filed by the respondent no. 1 for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977. The respondent no. 1 had alleged that his services were terminated by the petitioners orally w.e.f. 15.6.2011. The respondent no.1 pleaded in the appeal and also in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal that a caveat notice was received by the respondent no. 1 on 27.6.2011 whereby, the respondent no.1 learnt that an order of termination was issued against him on 14.6.2011. Since the respondent No. 1 received the caveat notice on 27.6.2011, it was stated in the application for condonation of delay that the appeal was filed on 25.7.2011, i.e. within one month from the date of receipt of the caveat notice. Even otherwise, there was only a delay of 11 days from the date of oral termination and hence the respondent no.1 sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2 The tribunal, by the impugned order dated 15.10.11 allowed the application filed by the respondents. The tribunal held that the contention raised by the petitioners that the respondent no.1 had refused to receive the order of termination would be considered at a later stage of the proceedings as the envelope showed different endorsements and the presumption about service of notice could not be drawn against the respondent no.1 at that stage. As the facts revealed that the delay is of only 11 days, if any, the tribunal was justified in allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 had not acted bonafide and there was negligence and inaction on the part of the respondent no.1, is liable to be rejected. Assuming that there is a delay, the delay is short one and of 11 days only. The judgment reported in 2010(8) S. C. C. 685 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the delay by taking a lenient view in the matter and this court cannot lightly interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.