IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2009 Vasant Ramchandra Khot ...Petitioner vs. The Chairman, Shree Kistoba Bardeskar Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.G. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.Amit M. Shete i/b. Mr.Amit B. Borkar for Respondent No.1. Mr.Burhan V. Bukhari for Respondent No.4. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 15, 2009 DATED : APRIL 15, 2009 DATED : APRIL 15, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is challenging judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, in Appeal No.32/98 dated 2nd September,2008. By the said judgment and order, the School Tribunal was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of three years of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner who was appointed as Peon was working with the respondent school. However, sometime in June 1994, - 2 - the management did not permit the petitioner to join the duties. He was informed by the management that the petitioner had tendered the resignation and same was accepted by the management. According to the petitioner, sometime in August 1994, he had made a complaint to the Deputy Education Officer who had made an enquiry, however, the report of the inquiry was not given to him and thereafter, he had approached the office of the Lok Ayukt and however, since no reply was received from the Lok Ayukt office, the appeal was filed by him before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal observed that though cause was shown by him for the delay caused during the period from 8.10.96 to 17.10.2007, the petitioner had failed to explain what steps he had taken from 8.6.94 to 8.10.96 and since the period of limitation had commenced from 8th June, 1994, no sufficient cause, according to the Tribunal, was given by the petitioner by any document on record. Therefore, on this ground, the application for condonation of delay was made. 3. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the - 3 - petitioner submitted that the School Tribunal had not taken into consideration the averments made by him in his affidavit in which he had pointed out that he had approached the Deputy Education Officer in August 1994 and that the report of the inquiry was not informed to him. The learned Counsel submitted that though this averment was mentioned, the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the explanation given by him for the period from August 1994 till the date of filing of the complaint before the office of the Lok Ayukt. It was submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the alleged ground of the resignation being accepted by the management. He submitted that the said resignation was fabricated document and the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case on merits. 4. Shri Bukhari, the learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner had approached the Deputy Education Officer in August 1994, therefore, the Tribunal had not taken into consideration - 4 - the said averment of the petitioner in his affidavit which was filed before the Tribunal. 5. In my view, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner had approached the Deputy Education Officer in August 1994. There is a gross delay of three years in filing the appeal. The period of limitation commenced in June 1994. No explanation is given as to why appeal could not be preferred from June 1994 to October 1996. It is settled position in law that once the period of limitation commences, it does not stop to run and therefore, merely because the petitioner had approached the office of the Lok Ayukty subsequently in the year 1996, that would not be a ground for condoning the entire delay which is caused in filing the appeal. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the School Tribunal while exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. - 5 - 6. Writ Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)