1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5558 OF 2009 (Shri Saraswati Vidya Mandir Amgaon & Anr. vs. Sau. Ranjana P. Badale & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 25, 2010. Heard Shri Pardhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3. The contention of Shri Pardhi, learned counsel is, the School Tribunal has not considered delay from 30.04.1996 till 22.06.1996. He further states that the recourse to remedies not available in law cannot be a just and sufficient ground to condone delay particularly when the management had, after termination of respondent No.1, filed caveat before Competent Court and, therefore, respondent – employee was aware that she has to approach the School Tribunal. He invited attention to documents filed by Respondent No.1 along with her reply to show that Respondent No.1 was trying to bring influence by approaching politicians and other persons. He has invited attention to observation of School Tribunal that because of her financial condition, she could not approach the School Tribunal in time and 2 he points out that the husband of said respondent is working as Clerk in Nationalized Bank. He states that the entire approach of the School Tribunal is erroneous and unsustainable. Shri Joshi, learned counsel, on the other hand supports the order of School Tribunal. He states that all correspondence and documents show the efforts made by Respondent No.1 to regain her employment and in the process she has approached Lok Ayukt. When the office of Lok Ayukt on 14.07.1998 observed that she has to approach the School Tribunal, the appeal before School Tribunal was filed. I have perused all papers. The contention of Shri Pardhi, learned counsel that termination has been brought about on 30.04.1996 and not on 22.06.1996 is a disputed question and School Tribunal has to consider it while deciding appeal on merits. The burden will be on Respondent No.1 to show that her services were terminated on 22.06.1996. The School Tribunal at this stage was only required to see whether the delay in challenging alleged termination has been sufficiently explained or not. The date of termination, therefore, was not relevant at that stage. The correspondence on record shows that Respondent No.1, approached Education Officer, Deputy Director of Education for regaining her employment and she also approached Lok Ayukt. After approaching Lok Ayukt and receipt of communication dated 14.07.1998, she has filed the 3 appeal before the School Tribunal with prayer for condonation of delay. Though all details date-wise are not explained, the relevant events are all disclosed. The School Tribunal has considered those events and has condoned the delay. I, therefore, do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in this respect. The poverty is given only as an additional reason by the School Tribunal and it is not the only reason. Hence, in the circumstances, keeping contention of petitioner regarding date of termination open, present writ petition is rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.