1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4678 OF 2009 (Bhaskar G. Gore vs. Balaji Yuvak Mandal, Sawad & 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. FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gawande, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mrs. Khade, learned AGP for respondent No.3. The petitioner filed MCA No. 12 of 2009 to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The delay was of seven years and two months. The petitioner contended that on 10.01.2002, approval was rejected and therefore, technically his services were terminated. The contention is, though terminated, he was allowed to attend duties, sign muster roll and teach students. This continued and in 2006 he obtained the necessary training qualification which entitled him to approval. In the year 2006, he met with an accident and could not attend duties thereafter for some time. When he went to attend the duties on 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006, he was physically restrained from entering the School. Therefore, the 2 jurisdiction of School Tribunal to condone delay was invoked. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that in above circumstances, when the petitioner continued in service from 1996 till 13.12.2006, delay ought to have been condoned and other questions like entitlement to approval etc. could have been considered by the School Tribunal on merits. Shri Gawande, learned counsel as also Mrs. Khade, learned AGP are relying upon the impugned judgment of School Tribunal to oppose the petition. The School Tribunal has found that the petitioner was all the while aware of his termination dated 10.01.2002 and he had approached the High Court in Writ Petition in 2002 itself vide Writ Petition No. 463 of 2002. It has thereafter noticed subsequent litigation between the parties to note that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner. The provisions of Rule 6 of MEPS Rules clearly show that the petitioner who was untrained, was continued on year to year basis, hence his approval was rightly rejected on 10.01.2002 and in spite of that he claimed to have worked in School but that working is not recognized in law. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the approach of School Tribunal. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE *GS.