1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAZ NO. 753/2011 IN LPA ST. NO. 12474/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1632 OF 2011 (Sharad Gramin Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. vs. Chandrakant Gajananrao Wani & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. NOVEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners and Shri Ahirkar, learned AGP for respondent No. 2. The management is before this Court seeking condonation of delay of 71 days. The learned AGP is opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. The judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge is dated 05.04.2011. The School Tribunal had only decided preliminary issue in the light of observations of this Court in the case of Anna Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati , reported at 1997 (3) Mh. L.J. 697 and in the case of Priyadarshini Education Trust vs. Ratis Bano, reported at 2007 (6) Mh. L.J. 667. The reasons given for condonation of delay are supported by an affidavit of the Secretary and the contents therein are stated to be true to his personal 2 knowledge and belief insofar as facts are concerned. The affidavit shows that certified copy was delivered on 26.04.2011 and the counsel then advised the applicants to file appeal. The applicants then contacted the counsel after Summer vacation and period of 8 to 10 days was required in presenting the proceedings. It is further stated that the period of 10 to 12 days was then required to sanction expenses. No resolution passed by the management to file present LPA or sanctioning its filing is placed on record. However, we have heard learned counsel on merits also. The learned Single Judge has found that though the appointment of Respondent No.1 was on year to year basis, that arrangement is continued for about three years and there was nothing on record to show why such year to year appointment was being made. We do not find any jurisdictional error either in findings recorded by the School Tribunal or then the approach of the learned Single Judge. Hence, CAZ No. 753 of 2011 is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.