(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6572 OF 2009 1. The Chairman, Narmada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Bhusawal, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. 2. The Head Master, Narmada Baliram Zope Vidyalaya, .. Petitioners Jamner Road, Bhusawal, (Original Taluka : Bhusawal, respondents) District : Jalgaon. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3. Shri Atul Manohar Thombare, Age : 28 years, Occupation : - , .. Respondents R/o. Gojore, (Original Taluka : Bhusawal, applicants) District : Jalgaon. .......................... (2) Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate, for respondent no.3. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31st March 2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Nashik, in Application No. MISC./JAL/21/2008, thereby condoning the delay of seven months in filing the appeal. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 4th September 2009, in Application No. MISC./JAL/15/2009, thereby allowing the application for amendment of the appeal. 2. Ms. Surekha Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal has erred in allowing the application for condonation of delay, inasmuch as, the delay was not properly explained. She further submits that by the amendment, entire nature of the appeal is changed and, (3) therefore, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal ought not to have allowed the application for amendment. 3. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal has given sound and cogent reasons for allowing the application for condonation of delay. So also, perusal of the application for amendment would reveal that the amendment is only for correcting certain typographical mistakes. In any case, the discretion which has been exercised by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, while allowing the application for condonation of delay and application for amendment, has been exercised in proper manner, which does not call interference by this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Needless to state, that the interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/6572wp