:1: :1: :1: 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.2904 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2904 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.2904 OF 2009 Shri Nitin Dharmaraj Mahale, .. Petitioner Vs The secretary, The New Education Institute and anr. .. Respondent Mr Anilkumar Patil, for the petitioner. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 20th MARCH, 2009. DATED : 20th MARCH, 2009. DATED : 20th MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of three years, seven months and five days in preferring an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The only grounds on which the condonation of delay was sought are that the petitioner did not have sufficient knowledge of law and that he belongs to scheduled tribe category and resides in a tribal area and, therefore, could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner has also contended that he was promised and assured :2: :2: :2: by the respondent-management that as soon as the post on which the petitioner was working is approved by the Government, the respondent would be reinstated. The tribunal has dealt with the prayer for condonation of delay in proper perspective and for the reasons recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned Judgment, rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The reasons recorded in paragraph 12 read thus: "12. It transpires from the averments made in the application that there is inordinate delay in preferring an appeal. There is delay of three years,seven months and five days in filing an appeal. The applicant was throughout negligent and he is not diligent in preferring an appeal, though he is well educated. Cause for delay shown by the appellant/applicant that he was bonafidely believing on the assurances given by the respondent institute appears to be flimsy or not reasonable one. The delay is not properly explained by the appellant/applicant. It is well settled that the tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay, but use of such discretion is circumscribed by the condition that the applicant must demonstrate existence of sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and there must be some valid reason to otherwise condone the delay in view of gross injustice likely to be caused due to rejection of the application. The tribunal can not over look that the law does not help the negligent person. In the instant case, as indicated above the applicant was throughout negligent. The applicant has unnecessarily wasted or killed the time. The applicant has utterly failed to establish that he had sufficient cause for not filing :3: :3: :3: an appeal." Even before this court the petitioner failed to produce a single document on record to show that there was an assurance from the management as contended by him. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)