1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3699 OF 2009 Dr. Subhash s/o Ramrao Kadam, Age: 33 years, Occ: Service, R/o. At Post Karanjala (Barashiv), Tq. Basamatnagar, Dist.Hingoli. .. Petitioner Versus The President, Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Parbhani and others. .. Respondents ... Mr. S.B. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 20th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 02-07-2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada 2 University, Aurangabad in Misc. Application No. 30/2008. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal and as there was delay of 33 months, he filed Misc. Application No. 30/2008 for condonation of delay. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents passed order of oral termination dated 20-01-2004, which is malafide and illegal. The Tribunal rejected the delay application on the ground that in the year 2003, the Management has called applications from eligible candidates for the post of Lecturer in Economics. Along with other candidates, the petitioner also filed application in pursuant to the said advertisement and interviews were held on 21-01-2004. The petitioner appeared for the interview. However, Selection Committee selected respondent No. 5 for the post of Lecturer in Economics Subject. This shows that the petitioner had knowledge about the appointment of respondent No.5 as Lecturer in Economics 3 Subject. In spite of that he waited for more than 33 months to file the appeal. There cannot be any duality of opinion that normally a litigant would not intentionally commit delay in filing of proceedings. The delay cannot be condoned only because it is unintentional. It will be rather too wide interpretation if the condonation of delay is to be allowed only because there is no intention of a party to cause delay. The reason is not far to seek. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner only submitted that the petitioner had no intention to cause delay. No sufficient attending circumstances placed on record to justify such allegation. There is nothing on record to fathom the mind of the petitioner and particularly, when he was sleeping over his rights while he was made aware in 2003 itself that the Management has called applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Lecturer in Economics. 4 4. I find no substance in the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUL09/wp3699.09