1 wp4541.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4541 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 5 and 6. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Barlinge for petitioner, Mr. V.D. Sapkal for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. By impugned order dated 27th November, 2009, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik has refused to condone the delay of about three months in filing appeal. 3. Advocate Mr. Barlinge for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-employee worked for almost 25 years and has given reasonable grounds for condoning the delay. By placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble 2 wp4541.10 Apex Court reported at "AIR 1987 SC 1353" (Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & ors), he argues that in such circumstances approach has to be reasonable and liberal. Grievance of employee with such long service can not be thrown out only because of such small delay. 4. According to Advocate Mr. Sapkal for respondent delay was not explained properly and School Tribunal has considered the material produced on record and thereafter has found no case made out. 5. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have perused the impugned order as also the application for condonation of delay. The employee-petitioner was in service from 13.12.1984 and has been dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2009 after departmental enquiry w.e.f. 1st March, 2009. She has participated in the departmental enquiry. 6. Reason given by her is psychological disturbance in view of her dismissal and the treatment from Doctor and rest advised by him. The School Tribunal has considered these reasons and noted that she was under treatment of Dr. Raghuwanshi from 01.03.2009, but then she was O.P.D. patient and certificates no where advised her any rest. The certificates produced did not reveal the date on which she would be fit to resume her normal 3 wp4541.10 duties. In this back ground the fact that she contested the elections to Parliament is also appreciated. In so far as State of Maharashtra is concerned, the said process began on 5th February, 2009 and actual poling was held on 16, 23 and 20th April, 2009. Counting was then held on 16th May, 2009. The fact that she contested the election is not in dispute. Advocate Mr. Barlinge for petitioner has attempted to contend that the candidate contesting need not personally canvas for votes and other supporters can very well participate in the process. Advocate Mr. Sapkal for respondent is pointing out the news paper photograph allegedly showing the petitioner while personally canvassing and participating in rally. 7. The petitioner has not disclosed her participation in election in prayer for condonation of delay. She could have very well pointed out that fact to School Tribunal and then prayed for condonation of delay by urging direct or indirect participation in canvassing. Petitioner therefore did not approach with clean hands. 8. The delay can be condoned by adopting the liberal approach if the applicant seeking such condonation establishes bonafides. 9. Here, the School Tribunal has considered all relevant facts and noted that the suppression of participation in the election. If she contested the election 4 wp4541.10 then why she could not file the appeal within limitation is not very clear. I therefore do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, the Petition is rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE 14.03.2011 gas/wp4541.10