WP/4348 & 4465/2010 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4348 OF 2010 Bansode Vilas Hanumant .. Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4465 OF 2010 Jadhav Vasant Barmu .. Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. P.B. Gujar for Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 9. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 13 TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Petitioners have approached this Court against the orders passed by the School Tribunal, Pune on 4th March, 2010 in M.C.A. No.13 of 2009 and M.C.A. No.15 of 2009, respectively. By these orders, the School Tribunal has found that the delay in approaching the School Tribunal was inordinate and could not be condoned. WP/4348 & 4465/2010 : 2 : 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that they have been superceded as they have not been granted the proper B.Ed. scale. The Petitioners, it appears, had approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions being Writ Petition Nos.4235 of 2008 and 4393 of 2008, respectively. By the orders dated 6th May, 2009, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and granted liberty to the Petitioners to approach the School Tribunal, Pune, subject to the law of limitation. Accordingly, the Appeals have been filed by the Petitioners in July, 2009. Those Appeals had been dismissed since the delay was not condoned. 3. The School Tribunal has found that the Appeals were filed about 8 years after the cause of action had arisen. According to the School Tribunal, the Applicants-Petitioners have not specified the date on which the seniority list was circulated. The School Tribunal has then found that letters have been given to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune, seeking the B.Ed. scale. These letters were dated 17th November, 2007, i.e. after 6 WP/4348 & 4465/2010 : 3 : years of the supersession. The School Tribunal has then found that no case has been made out by the Petitioners to condone the delay and laches and it has, therefore, dismissed the applications of the Applicants-Petitioners and consequently the appeals. 4. These findings of the School Tribunal are not perverse and are based on material on record. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere in the orders passed by the School Tribunal. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saramma Varghese vs. Secretary/President, S.I.C.E.S. Society & Ors., reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 951 . This judgment does not carry the case of the Petitioners any further. In fact, the judgment is merely based on the merits of the case and it has nothing to do with condonation of the delay. In the case of Executive President, Pune Vidyarthi Griha, Pune & Ors. vs. Bhaskar Bhagwant Yadav & Ors., reported in 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 226, a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed the manner in which the WP/4348 & 4465/2010 : 4 : Tribunals are expected to consider whether the delay should be condoned. The Court has observed: “It is true that while considering the question of sufficiency of the cause for condonation of delay, the Courts or tribunals must be liberal and have justice oriented approach, it cannot be overlooked that upon expiry of limitation, the valuable right accrues in favour of opposite party which cannot be taken away on flimsy ground.” 6. The School Tribunal, in my opinion, has found that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Petitioners for preferring the appeals after an inordinate delay. Even assuming the Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2008 and were dismissed in May, 2009, this would not necessarily mean that the Petitioners could delay in approaching the Court. The Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the Writ Petitions, had granted liberty to the Petitioners to approach the School Tribunal subject to the law of limitation. 6. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.