(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8808 OF 2010 Mr. Manoj Shantaram Patil, Age : - , Occupation : Nil, R/o. A/P. Mohadi, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus Jalgaon District Maratha Vidya Prasarak Cooperative Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, C/o. New Maratha College, Near District Court, Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon (Through the Honorary Secretary), and 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Brahme, for the petitioner; Adv. Mr. Hon, for respondent nos.1 and 2, and learned AGP Mr. Korde, for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20-3-2010, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik, in Misc. Application No. JAL/57/2009. 3. By the impugned order, the School Tribunal has refused to condone delay of about 5 years and 3 months in approaching it. It has noted that the petitioner was approaching management but then, found his explanation in this respect unacceptable and unreasonable because of his stand that Head Master, Shri N.G. Patil, and one member of school management, Shri S.M. Patil, had personal grudge against him. The story was, he was assured that he could be taken back after criminal prosecution is over. The prosecution is still not over. (3) 4. In this background, Adv. Mr. Brahme, for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is ready to forego back wages, however, his grievance should be adjudicated on merits. 5. Adv. Mr. Hon, for respondent nos.1 and 2, is not accepting such proposal. 6. As I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order, the petition is rejected. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8808