IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3290 OF 2008 Mr.Sukhdeo Narsinga Chougle .... Petitioner V/s. The Chaitanya Education Society & Ors. .... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3293 OF 2008 Mr.Pundalik Annasaheb Jagdale ..... Petitioner V/s. The Chaitanya Education Society & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.G.Damle, Advocate, for the Petitioner. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : JULY 10, 2008. P.C. 1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, with the consent of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, both these matters are taken for admission and hearing together. 2. By filing these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, dated 30-01-2008 passed in 2 Appeal No.51 of 1995 as well as Appeal No.50 of 1995. The tribunal has rejected the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that even though the termination order is dated 31-05-1991, the appeal has been filed after 3 years 3 months and 19 days. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that sufficient cause was madeout before the Tribunal for condoning the delay as after the termination order the petitioners were trying to solve the dispute by attending the office of the school and they were under impression that the dispute will be settled. 3. In my view, the tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that no cause was shown for condoning the delay. Considering the reasoning given by the Tribunal, in my view, it is not a case in which the impugned order is required to be interfered with by this Court in its extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any substance in each of these petitions. Both these petitions are hereby dismissed at an admission stage. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)