1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CAZ No.741/2011 in LPA St. No. 16366/2011 in WP No.1347/2001 Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. M.R. Rajgure, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. S. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ DATED : 29th NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard. Prayer is to condone delay of two years and 133 days in filing the LPA against the judgment dated 3rd April 2009. By the said judgment delivered in Wit Petition No.1347/2001 the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter back to Deputy Director of Education for taking fresh decision It is not in dispute that accordingly on 21st July 2009 the Deputy Director of Education, after hearing both sides, passed an order of punishment and that order was then questioned by the present applicant in Writ Petition No. 1145/2010 . On 5th July, 2010 that petition was allowed and the order of punishment was set aside. The Deputy Director of Education was again 2 directed to take appropriate decision and accordingly that decision was taken on 13th September 2010. The punishment of withholding of five increments of non- applicant has been inflicted upon him. That order of punishment forms the subject matter and was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.1054/2011 by the present applicant. In this situation, it is apparent that the applicant has acquiesced in the order of remand and participated in the proceedings and thereafter present LPA is sought to be filed. Learned counsel invites our attention to certain observations made in Writ Petition No.1054/2011 when rival contentions were being considered. The observations made during such hearing cannot confer any fresh cause of action. We therefore find merit in objections of Advocate Chandurkar. The LPA as filed is itself misconceived. The application for condonation of delay as filed therein is equally misconceived. Both are rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.